Opinion
# 2015-044-505 Claim No. 123727 Motion No. M-85799
02-03-2015
JESSIE ENGLES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JESSIE ENGLES, pro se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: THOMAS TRACE, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to compel granted in part and denied in part.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-044-505 |
| Claimant(s): | JESSIE ENGLES |
| Claimant short name: | ENGLES |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123727 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85799 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE |
| Claimant's attorney: | JESSIE ENGLES, pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: THOMAS TRACE, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 3, 2015 |
| City: | Binghamton |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this claim to recover for the loss of personal property which allegedly occurred during his transfer from Elmira Correctional Facility to Central New York Psychiatric Center, and then to Wende Correctional Facility, while he was in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Defendant State of New York (defendant) answered and asserted two affirmative defenses. Claimant now moves to compel discovery. Defendant opposes the motion. Claimant replies.
Claimant argues that defendant has never produced any of documents requested in his notice to produce (Demand) dated April 8, 2014. Claimant contends that defendant has improperly withheld production of DOCCS Directives 4004 and 4931 as privileged, and in any event, defendant has waived any objection based upon either privilege or relevancy by failing to timely respond.
Conversely, defendant contends that since its initial response dated April 25, 2014, it has conducted an investigation and has provided copies of all requested documents which are in DOCCS' possession. Defendant further argues that pursuant to DOCCS Directive No. 1, Directives 4004 and 4931 are prohibited from disclosure to an inmate as they contain privileged information, which if disclosed would compromise prison security. Lastly, defendant notes that Directive 2733 is available to claimant in the prison law library and in any event is not relevant to this claim.
However, defendant states that several documents which claimant had requested simply do not exist.
In its opposition to this motion, defendant has provided copies of documents responding to a portion of Demand No. 1 as well as Demand Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 10. Defendant has also represented that the documents claimant requested in Demand Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9, as well as the remainder of Demand No. 1, do not exist. Defendant continues to object to the disclosure of Directives 4004 and 4931 (Demand Nos. 11 and 12) as they would impact security, and also resists disclosure of DOCCS Directive No. 2733 (Demand No. 13) because it is both readily available and irrelevant to the determination of this claim.
Claimant acknowledges that defendant has now responded to Demand Nos. 1 through 10, but contends that because it did not do so within the time limitations of CPLR 3120, defendant should be directed to disclose Directives 2733, 4004, and 4931 in their entirety. In the alternative, claimant requests that defendant submit all three directives directly to the Court for an in camera review.
CPLR 3120 provides that a notice to produce "shall specify the time, which shall be not less than twenty days after service of the notice . . . and the place and manner of making the . . . copy." In his Notice dated April 8, 2014, claimant requested that the documents be provided within 30 days. Defendant's response dated April 25, 2014, and served within the 30-day time period, essentially indicates that the Attorney General's Office would request documentation responsive to the demand from DOCCS, and if available, defendant would provide claimant with the appropriate copies. Because claimant has received responses to Demand Nos. 1 through 10, the motion to compel is denied with respect these demands.
Claimant's Demand Nos. 11 and 12 request copies of DOCCS Directives 4004 and 4931, respectively. As set forth previously herein, defendant opposes production of these two directives, contending that the information contained therein would threaten the security of the facility and that pursuant to Directive 1, Directives 4004 and 4931 are not available to inmates. Defendant further asserts that the directives are not relevant to resolution of the claim. The Court notes that defendant found claimant responsible for the destruction of his in-cell property due to an unhygienic act (he allegedly covered his cell with feces and then flooded it) and thus denied his facility claim. Presumably an unusual incident report was thereafter completed with respect to the event. Because it appears that the directives may well be relevant to this claim, claimant's motion is granted to the extent that defendant is directed to produce to the Court for in camera review unredacted copies of DOCCS Directives 1, 4004 and 4931, all within 30 days of the filing of this Decision and Order.
Directives 4004 and 4931 are entitled Unusual Report Directive and Unhygienic Act Directive, respectively.
Demand No. 13 seeks a copy of DOCCS Directive 2733, apparently entitled Personal Property Claim Directive. Defendant objects to the production of this directive both because it is available to claimant through the prison law library and that it is not relevant to the determination of this claim. The mere fact that a claimant may obtain requested information in some other manner (for instance by utilizing the prison law library) "does not foreclose a CPLR 3120 demand once an action has been commenced" (Barnes v State of New York, UID No. 2008-037-012 [Ct Cl, Moriarty III, J., Apr. 7, 2008]). Moreover, a directive governing personal property claims appears on its face to be relevant to this bailment claim. Accordingly, defendant is directed to provide claimant with a copy of DOCCS Directive 2733 within 30 days of the filing of this Decision and Order.
Lastly, claimant also informally requests sanctions for defendant's delay in responding to the Demand. CPLR 3126, in pertinent part, authorizes the Court to impose sanctions where a party "wilfully fails to disclose information which the [C]ourt finds ought to have been disclosed." It is well-settled that a trial court has broad discretion in controlling discovery and in determining when and to what extent that a discovery sanction should be imposed (Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 290 AD2d 928, 929 [3d Dept 2002]; Puccia v Farley, 261 AD2d 83, 85 [3d Dept 1999]). The Court notes that defendant initially responded in a timely manner, indicating its objection to producing the requested directives and stating that it would conduct an investigation into the existence of other requested documents. Although the Court does not countenance defendant's apparent dilatory conduct in not fully responding to claimant's Demand until this motion to compel, there does not appear to be any prejudice to claimant at this early stage in the litigation. Accordingly, to the extent that claimant's motion is seeking sanctions based upon defendant's delay in responding, it is denied.
Moreover, it would be inappropriate to order as a discovery sanction a blanket disclosure of Directives 4004 and 4931 which may potentially implicate the security of a correctional facility.
In conclusion, claimant's motion is granted solely to the extent that defendant is directed to provide claimant with a copy of Directive 2733 and to provide the Court with unredacted copies of DOCCS Directives 1, 4004 and 4931 as well as copies of Directives 4004 and 4931 which are redacted to remove any material which allegedly constitutes a security concern, all within 30 days of the filing of this Decision and Order.
February 3, 2015
Binghamton, New York
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers have been read on claimant's motion:
1) Notice of Motion filed on September 24, 2014; Affidavit of Jessie Engles sworn to on September 16, 2014, and attached exhibits.
2) Affirmation in Opposition of Thomas Trace, Assistant Attorney General, dated October 30, 2014, and attached exhibits.
3) Letter Reply of Jessie Engles, sworn to on November 14, 2014.
Filed papers: Claim filed on December 30, 2013; Verified Answer filed on January 30, 2014.