DECISION & ORDER Pending before this Court are two discovery motions: the first, a motion filed by pro se plaintiff for an order sanctioning defendants and compelling them to answer Interrogatories 5 and 5.1 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories dated December 14, 2018 (Docket # 65); the second, a motion filed by defendants for an order compelling plaintiff to produce transcripts of various court proceedings and to answer certain questions he refused to answer at his deposition, and extending the discovery deadlines (Docket # 67). For the reasons explained more fully below, both motions are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions Turning first to plaintiff’s motion, Interrogatories 5 and 5.1 ask: 5. All defendants — did you or any one in your department contact an attorney prior to arriving at the plaintiff’s home on March 15, 2016, for advisement in regards how to handle that specific situation? 5.1. If yes, when (date and time)? Where? Name of Attorney? (Docket # 65 at 11). Defendants refused to answer the interrogatories on the grounds that the information sought was protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. (Id. at 20). During a court-ordered conferral meeting on April 25, 2019, counsel for defendants stated that she would consider identifying the name of any attorney consulted. (See Docket # 71 at 7). The following day, however, she advised plaintiff that defendants “have declined to respond to Interrogatories 5 and 5.1.” (Docket # 71-1 at 1). Counsel’s Declaration opposing plaintiff’s pending motion asserts attorney-client privilege as the basis for defendants’ continued refusal to answer the interrogatories. (Docket # 71 at
4-5, 7). As plaintiff correctly observes, his motion papers do not seek information about the content of any attorney-client communications, which would be privileged from disclosure. (Docket # 65 at 6). Rather, he seeks to determine whether defendants consulted with an attorney before arriving at his home on March 15, 2016 (an encounter that led to his arrest) and, if so, the name of the attorney and the time and place of consultation. Unlike the content of any communications with counsel, the specific and limited information plaintiff seeks is not protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., In re Application of Chevron Corp., 736 F. Supp. 2d 773, 783 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“the party seeking disclosure [of information concerning allegedly privileged attorney-client communications] nevertheless is entitled to discover the dates and places of and the identities of the participants in the communications”); Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 2001 WL 1356192, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“the date on which a privileged communication took place and the identity of the persons who participated in a meeting…are not generally regarded as privileged [under the attorney-client privilege]“) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, defendants are directed to respond to Interrogatories 5 and 5.1 within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Their answers shall not be deemed to waive the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff’s application for sanctions is denied. In this regard, it is noteworthy that plaintiff himself asserted privilege in refusing to answer a deposition question as to the identity of his attorney during his custody proceedings. (See Docket # 67-1, Exhibit F (Transcript of Oral Examination of Michael Rech on June 17, 2019) (hereinafter referred to as “Tr.”)) at 15). Moreover, the record shows that the April 25 conferral meeting resulted in an agreement that defendants would provide supplemental discovery in response to plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and additional discovery in response to supplemental discovery requests to be served by plaintiff. (See Docket # 71-1 at 1). Such discovery has apparently been provided by defendants (Docket # 65 at 28-31), and plaintiff has not raised any issues with respect to the adequacy of those responses. Defendants’ Motion to Compel and to Extend Discovery Deadlines Turning next to defendants’ motion, defendants seek an order compelling plaintiff to provide (1) copies of certain transcripts of court proceedings; and, (2) answers to questions he refused to answer at his deposition. (Docket # 67-1 at
