Opinion
19 Civ. 5694 (AKH)
10-04-2022
ROSALIND BELLIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. HOWARD ZUCKER et al., Defendants
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, DENYING NONPARTY OTDA'S MOTION TO QUASH, AND GRANTING NON-PARTY OTDA'S MOTION TO SEAL
ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff moves to compel non-party New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (“OTDA”) to produce documents pursuant to a document subpoena, and OTDA moves to quash the document subpoena. (ECF Nos. 106, 109.) OTDA also moves to seal portions of its memoranda describing the documents at issue. (ECF No. 113.)
Plaintiff requests three categories of documents.
1. Documents sufficient to describe and explain the function of the fair hearing decision system and/or software used by Administrative Law Judges who render fair hearing decisions concerning Medicaid home care and/or personal care services.
2. Training materials provided to Administrative Law Judges, who render fair hearing decisions about Medicaid home care and/or personal care services, concerning the fair hearing drafting system and/or software used by Administrative Law Judges to draft fair hearing decisions.
3. All pre-written paragraphs and/or pages a [sic] that contain the applicable law, policies and/or standards concerning personal care services and/or home care services that are available through the fair hearing drafting system and/or software, for utilization by ALJs drafting fair hearing decisions.
Plaintiff claims that the requested documentation is relevant to whether the policies and practices of State Defendant meaningfully channel d: create a property interest in the number of personal care services hours awards OTDA opposes and moves to quash. It argues that (1) the documents are not Plaintiffs claim; (2) it has already produced responsive documents and that tl deposition of a relevant witness would be cumulative and duplicative as to Re the requests are unduly burdensome and Plaintiff can obtain the information b online public database; and (4) the subpoena does not allow reasonable time f
The motion to compel is granted and the motion to quash denic objections all lack merit. The requested information plainly is relevant to Pla Although OTDA claims testimony and documents have been provided as to F and seeks to quash on that basis, it does not provide specificity regarding the < produced, and without specificity, the response is vague and meaningless. Pl; are relevant to its claim that it has a property interest. As to the claims that th unduly burdensome, OTDA estimates that it would take 12 hours for it to pro templates. It offers no basis for this estimate and therefore has not shown tha be unduly burdensome. Furthermore, OTDA's suggestion that Plaintiff can f by searching a public website and database is unreasonable. If OTDA has the templates in its possession, there is no reason Plaintiff should have to sift thre the three weeks following that date. OTDA's motion to seal is granted. The information requested to be filed under seal is subject to the protective order (ECF No. 86) already entered in this case.
The Clerk of Court shall terminate ECF Nos. 106, 109, 113.
SO ORDERED.