Summary
upholding redaction of personal information of non-parties, including home address and family information
Summary of this case from Beruashvili v. Hobart Corporation Illinois Tool WorksOpinion
04 Civ. 0566 (PAC) (RLE).
July 14, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Roger Andrews ("Andrews") brings this action against Correctional Officers Eddie Cruz ("Cruz"), J.A. Padilla ("Padilla"), and Thomas Lavan ("Lavan") alleging various civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Andrews's motion to compel the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), a third party, to comply with a subpoena. For the reasons which follow, Andrews's motion is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
II. BACKGROUND
Andrews served DOCS with a subpoena on November 17, 2005, requesting records related to the allegations in his complaint. Since DOCS failed to produce requested records, on February 10, 2006, and March 24, 2006, Andrews renewed his request that all subpoenaed records be disclosed. Since the records were not produced, Andrews filed the instant motion on May 16, 2006.
Defendants have failed to file a response to the pending motion. On May 25, 2006, DOCS informed the Court that the parties were narrowing outstanding issues with respect to the subpoenaed records. On the other hand, Andrews indicated that the parties had failed to confer. In any case, the dispute remained unresolved. On June 8, 2006, defendants were erroneously informed by telephone that a response would be due by June 19, 2006. That same day, the Court issued a written order which 1) indicated the correct response date of June 16, 2006, and 2) informed defendants that failure to file a timely response would constitute a default on the motion. See Order dated June 8, 2006, PACER Doc # 52. The June 8 order was posted on PACER and sent to all parties via fax.
By letter dated June 9, 2006, Lavan informed the Court that he does not object to Andrews's motion to compel. This was the only timely response to the pending motion. Rather than filing a response on the merits, Padilla submitted a letter, dated June 15, 2006, asking the Court to 1) grant an extension of time to respond to the pending motion, and 2) direct DOCS to provide defendants with the subpoenaed records. On June 16, counsel for Cruz telephoned the Court to report that her submission — which consists of a one-paragraph letter joining in Padilla's request — was untimely. Counsel for Cruz did not seek relief from the June 16 deadline, and did not explain her failure to timely prepare and file a response in accordance with the June 8 Order.
On June 19, counsel for DOCS telephoned the Court to report that either he did not receive the June 8 Order, or if he did receive it, he did not read it carefully, and that he was aware of the June 16 response date, but thought it did not apply to him. In its untimely response, DOCS argues that records from the Inspector General concerning investigations into defendants' conduct during their employment with DOCS are protected from disclosure because 1) they are privileged under New York State Civil Rights Law ("N.Y.C.R.L.") § 50-a; 2) they are irrelevant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence because they are unrelated to the facts giving rise to this action; and 3) their production is unduly burdensome in that it would comprise several hundred pages. In addition, DOCS concedes that certain relevant discovery records have not yet been produced, and asks the Court for leave to redact these outstanding discovery records to protect confidential information — namely, the names of non-party inmates, employees, and witnesses; social security numbers; home addresses; and the names of family members.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Legal Standard
The scope of discovery is generally limited to any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "Relevancy is broadly construed to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Carey v. Berisford Metals Corp., 1991 WL 44843, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 1991) (quotations and citation omitted). "Discovery is of broader scope than admissibility, and discovery may be had of inadmissible matters." King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 194 (E.D.N.Y. 1988). The Court has broad discretion in managing discovery. Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., 379 F.3d 32, 41 (2d Cir. 2004); In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 2003); Cruden v. Bank of New York, 957 F.2d 961, 972 (2d Cir. 1992).
B. Defendants' Response to the Pending Motion
The records Andrews seeks are relevant to the allegations in his complaint because they concern DOCS's policies and practices, and defendants' alleged misconduct, which is the basis for this action. Andrews has been seeking the disclosure of these records since November 17, 2005. Padilla and Cruz maintain that they have not received the contested records from DOCS and request an extension of time to file a response to the pending motion. It is unclear what, if anything, defendants have been doing with respect to the pending motion since it was filed on May 16, 2006. They fail to explain 1) why the motion should not be granted; 2) what efforts they have made to obtain these subpoenaed records, and why they have not received or reviewed them; and 3) why an order from the Court is necessary to obtain these records. DOCS has failed to comply with Andrews's subpoena. The individual defendants have failed to procure and review the records, and failed to respond to the pending motion. No legal basis for withholding the records has been submitted to the Court by defendants. Since Padilla and Cruz have failed to explain why an extension of time to respond to the motion is necessary, and have otherwise failed to show good cause, their request for an extension of time to file a response to the pending motion is hereby DENIED.
C. DOCS's Response to the Pending Motion
DOCS argues that the requested records are protected from disclosure pursuant to N.Y.C.R.L. § 50-a, a statute mandating confidentiality for personnel records of correctional officers. It contends that this statute should apply to this case as a matter of comity. Since privileges set forth in New York State law do not govern discovery in federal cases, DOCS's argument is without merit. See Melendez v. Greiner, 2003 WL 22434101, at *4-7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2003). Impediments to factfinding in a § 1983 case are not favored because the Federal government has a vital interest in upholding civil rights. Skibo v. City of New York, 109 F.R.D. 58, 64 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).
Andrews seeks Inspector General files concerning investigations into defendants' conduct during their employment with DOCS. DOCS argues that the investigations concern defendants' conduct both in matters giving rise to this action and unrelated to Andrews, and that the latter is protected from disclosure. The Court does not agree. DOCS submitted Inspector General records to the Court for an in camera inspection. Certain withheld records concern allegations of assault, battery, and use of force. The Court finds that records of investigations, complaints and charges for conduct similar to that alleged by Andrews is discoverable. Inspector General files concerning similar charges, grievances, and investigations are related and relevant to the allegations in this case, and may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Although DOCS argues that some investigations involve unsubstantiated charges, that the allegations may not have been substantiated does not protect the records from discovery. See Younger v. City of New York, 2006 WL 1206489, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2006).
DOCS contends that the production of the requested records is unduly burdensome in that it would comprise several hundred pages. More specifically, DOCS argues that the burden of production outweighs the probative value. The Court disagrees. The withheld records are directly related to Andrews's civil rights claims. The failure to produce these records since November 17, 2005, has prevented the timely and effective prosecution of this case. The records shall be produced by July 21, 2006.
DOCS asks the Court for permission to redact the outstanding records to protect confidential information — namely, the names of non-party inmates and employees, social security numbers, home addresses, and the names of family members. Although there is a protective order in effect in this case, the Court finds that the redaction of social security numbers, home addresses, and family information is appropriate to protect personal and private information. However, the names of non-party inmates and employees may lead to discoverable information because they are potential witnesses. The redaction of this information will unfairly prejudice Andrews. It appears, based on the documents DOCS submitted for an in camera review, that personal and private information has already been redacted. The Court therefore does not expect the redactions to delay the disclosure of the requested records. Since defendants have been expecting the disclosure of these records since November 2005, all remaining redactions shall be done on an expedited basis.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Andrews's motion to compel DOCS to comply with the subpoena is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The subpoenaed records shall be produced by July 21, 2006.
SO ORDERED.