Opinion
# 2019-059-048 Claim No. 132967 Motion No. M-94716
12-17-2019
DONALD SAXON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DONALD SAXON, pro se HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Dorothy M. Keogh, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2019-059-048 |
| Claimant(s): | DONALD SAXON |
| Claimant short name: | SAXON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 132967 |
| Motion number(s): | M-94716 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | MAUREEN T. LICCIONE |
| Claimant's attorney: | DONALD SAXON, pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Dorothy M. Keogh, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 17, 2019 |
| City: | Central Islip |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
By claim filed April 22, 2019, Claimant Donald Saxon, an inmate proceeding pro se, seeks to hold Defendant State of New York liable for second degree burns he sustained in Sing Sing Correctional Facility as the result of a shower with a broken thermostat that did not regulate the water temperature. The claim alleges that Defendant knew of the dangerous condition and failed to take any action to repair the faulty shower.
Claimant now moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the State to provide him with certain items of discovery and for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126. Defendant opposes the application.
By way of background, on July 8, 2019 Defendant received a letter from Claimant that contained his discovery requests (Aff. in Opp., Ex. A). The body of the letter states in relevant part, as follows:
"Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3102 and 3120, I am requesting that you please provide me the following documents. Incident reports, hospital records, to and from, memos, photographs, memorandums, grievances, supervisors and correctional officers logs memos and maintenance logs. I also ask that you please provide me all documents that I am not aware of that is relevant to my claim" (id.).
By letter dated October 15, 2019 the State responded to Claimant's discovery request by objecting to it as being "unduly broad, burdensome, vague and not relevant" (Aff. in Opp., Ex. B).
CPLR 3101 (a) provides for "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." A party, however, does not have the right to "uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure" (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531 [2d Dept 2007]). CPLR 3122 (a) (1) provides that an objection to a notice for disclosure must be interposed within 20 days of service. The State's discovery response did not fall within this time frame. However, a defendant's failure to timely comply does not foreclose review of its objections to demands that are palpably improper or seek information that is privileged (see Jordan v City of New York, 137 AD3d 1084, 1084-1085 [2d Dept 2016]; Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721, 722 [2d Dept 1995]). A demand is palpably improper when its seeks irrelevant information, is overbroad and burdensome, or fails to specify with reasonable particularity many of the documents demanded (see Jordan v City of New York, 137 AD3d at 1084-1985; CPLR 3120 [2]). The Court has broad discretion in supervising disclosure, to "prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice" (Ravnikar v Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc., 79 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2d Dept 2010] [citations omitted]). While Courts generally do not engage judicial pruning of discovery requests (see Pascual v Rustic Woods Homeowners Assn., Inc., 173 AD3d 757, 758 [2d Dept 2019] [where the discovery demands are palpably improper, "the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it"]), under the circumstances, and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court construes Claimant's request to be limited to documents that were generated as a result of the incident that took place May 11, 2018 as alleged in the claim (see e.g. Sheils v State of New York, UID No. 2006-032-045 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., May 15, 2006]). That being said, the Court finds that Claimant's requests for "maintenance logs" and for "all documents that I am not aware of that is relevant to my claim" to be palpably improper for failure to specify the requested documents with reasonable particularity (see, Ritchie v Carvel Corp. 180 AD2d 788 [2d Dept 1992]).
Therefore, Defendant is directed to provide Claimant with the following materials limited to those that arose out of the incident set forth in the claim within 45 days of the filing of this decision and order or to request in camera review of any objectionable materials: incident reports, to/from memos, photographs, memorandums, grievances, supervisors and correction officers log memos.
With respect to Claimant's request for his own medical records, the State is not liable for the costs of photocopying documents that are sought pursuant to a discovery request (see Civil Rights Law § 79 (3) and § 79-a (3); see also Gittens v State of New York, 175 AD2d 530, 530-531 [3d Dept 1991] ["Civil Rights Law § 79 (3) and § 79-a (3) specifically provide that the State shall not be liable for any expense of, or related to, inmate litigation . . ."]; see e.g. Bourazanis v State of New York, UID No. 2017-054-008 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., Oct. 18, 2017] ["defendant is not required to bear the costs of reproduction of claimant's medical records"]). Thus, with 45 days of the filing of this decision and order Defendant shall inform Claimant in writing of the duplication fee for this item at no more then 50 cents per page, and Claimant shall then advise Defendant in writing if he desires a copy (see, Shanley v State of New York, UID No. 2014-049-001 [Ct Cl, Weinstein J., Jan. 8 2014]).
Inmates generally are able to obtain medical records by making a written request for medical records to the inmate records coordinator ("IRC") at their facility (see, e.g., White v State of New York, UID 2014-038-548 [CtCl DeBow, J. Oct. 1 2014].
To the extent Claimant seeks sanctions, his request is denied as he failed to demonstrate that Defendant's tardy response was willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Francis v Mount Vernon Bd. of Educ., 164 AD3d 873 [2d Dept 2018]; Green Tree Servicing LLC v Bormann, 157 AD3d 1112 [3d Dept 2018]; CPLR 3126).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Claimant's motion is granted to the extent as stated herein; and it is further
ORDERED that Claimant's motion to compel production of other items, including "maintenance logs" and for "all documents that I am not aware of that is relevant to my claim," is denied without prejudice to claimant serving a more narrowly-tailored disclosure request that specifies with reasonable particularity the documents sought; and it is further
ORDERED that Claimant's motion to impose sanctions is denied.
December 17, 2019
Central Islip , New York
MAUREEN T. LICCIONE
Judge of the Court of Claims