Opinion
# 2020-040-013 Claim No. 131684 Motion No. M-94635
02-13-2020
DONNIE SMITH, DIN #16A5041 v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
WATKINS LAW By: Christopher D. Watkins, Esq. LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Claimant's Motion to produce documents granted in part. Court to conduct in camera review.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-040-013 |
| Claimant(s): | DONNIE SMITH, DIN #16A5041 |
| Claimant short name: | SMITH |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 131684 |
| Motion number(s): | M-94635 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | WATKINS LAW By: Christopher D. Watkins, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 13, 2020 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's Motion for an order directing the State to produce specified documents pursuant to CPLR 3124 is granted in part.
The Claim, which was filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Court on July 9, 2018, alleges that, on October 30, 2017, at approximately 8:15 p.m., at Clinton Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Clinton"), Claimant was attacked by two inmates with weapons in the North Yard on the hill. Claimant further alleges that he was assaulted again by two inmates at Clinton in the North Yard at approximately 4:50 p.m. on April 9, 2018. Claimant asserts that Defendant was negligent in supervising the inmates and allowing him to be assaulted.
Claimant's counsel asserts, in his affirmation submitted in support of the Motion, that, he served Defendant with a Combined Discovery Demand on February 28, 2019 (Affirmation of Christopher D. Watkins, Esq. [hereinafter, "Watkins Affirmation"], ¶5, and Ex. 1 attached). He further avers that Defendant responded to the discovery requests on or about April 18, 2019 (id., ¶ 6, and Ex. 2 attached). Counsel states that Defendant produced various responsive documents, but objected to certain requests and refused to respond to those requests (id., ¶ 7).
In his Motion, Claimant seeks responses to requests 5, 6 and 13. Request 5 seeks the disciplinary and psychiatric records of the inmates who assaulted Claimant on October 30, 2017. Request 6 seeks the disciplinary and psychiatric records of the inmates who assaulted Claimant on April 9, 2018. The Court notes that, in his Reply Affirmation, Mr. Watkins withdraws Claimant's request for the psychiatric records of the four alleged assailants (Watkins Reply Affirmation, ¶ 2). Request 13 seeks documents that refer or relate to any violent incidents that occurred in the North Yard at Clinton from October 2014 through April 2018.
Request 6 of Claimant's Combined Discovery Demand actually repeats Demand 5, seeking the disciplinary and psychiatric records of the inmates who assaulted Claimant on October 30, 2017. Claimant's counsel, by letter dated January 8, 2020, clarified that Request 6 is actually seeking the disciplinary and psychiatric records of the inmates who assaulted Claimant on April 9, 2018.
Claimant asserts that CPLR § 3101 mandates that there shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution of an action. He further asserts that the items he seeks to compel are material and necessary to the prosecution of his Claim.
Generally, as stated above, the scope of discovery is broad and CPLR § 3101(a) mandates "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." It is to be liberally construed, subject to a showing of materiality and necessity, and in the absence of a privilege that militates against disclosure (Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605, 608 [1981]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; McKinney v State of New York, 111 Misc 2d 382, 384 [Ct Cl 1981]).
"The party seeking to prevent disclosure has a heavy burden, especially where the materials sought are relevant" (Marten v Eden Park Health Servs., 250 AD2d 44, 46 [3d Dept 1998]). It is the party opposing discovery who has the burden to prove that the particular items sought are exempt or immune from disclosure (Salzer v Farm Family Life Ins. Co., 280 AD2d 844, 845 [3d Dept 2001]; see Boggs v State of New York, UID No. 2014-041-023 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., Apr. 1, 2014]).
With respect to the particular nature of the Claim, Wilson v State of New York (36 AD2d 559, 559-560 [3d Dept 1971]) instructs that, in a claim alleging the State's failure to protect an inmate from assault by a fellow inmate:
"Evidence of the attacker's prior behavior … would be material and necessary to the prosecution of this claim … since the State's duty is measured by the risks reasonably to be foreseen … However, CPLR 3101 (subd. [b]) provides that, if a party objects, as the Attorney-General has done here, 'privileged matter shall not be obtainable' … In addition to privileges recognized by statute … a common-law privilege prevents disclosure of official information where the disclosure is either forbidden by statute … or would prove harmful to the public interest."
The Court finds that Claimant has established a sufficient basis to justify a review, in camera, of the inmate disciplinary records of the four alleged assailants, who are known to Defendant, kept by the Defendant.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant is to provide the Court, for purposes of an in-camera inspection, two copies of all inmate disciplinary records of each of the four alleged assailants kept by the Defendant, within forty-five (45) days of the date this Decision and Order is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Claims. In the case of each inmate, one copy shall be unredacted and the other shall be marked with proposed redactions that Defendant believes will protect any security interests or confidential information. Defendant is directed to sequentially number the pages of the records submitted. After reviewing the submissions, the Court will issue further direction indicating what, if any, portions of the documents in question shall be provided to Claimant.
In opposition to Claimant's Request 13, which seeks documents that refer or relate to any violent incidents that occurred in the North Yard at Clinton from October 2014 through April 2018, Defendant submitted the Affirmation of Charles J. Quackenbush, Esq. (hereinafter, "Quackenbush Affirmation"), Deputy Counsel/Director of Litigation for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter, "DOCCS"). Mr. Quackenbush avers that DOCCS does not index information on violent incidents according to areas of occurrence. Any violent incidents, regardless of location, are recorded as "unusual incidents." A record entitled an "unusual incident report" (hereinafter, "UI") is generated. Paper reports are manually filed in cabinets at the facility in which the incident occurs. The facility then enters the incident into a computerized UI database (Quackenbush Affirmation, ¶ 5). He further avers that DOCCS does not document, collate, or collect information relating to violent incidents that could be searchable by location. The electronic UI database is not programmed to accommodate such searches. The only means to obtain information regarding violent incidents at particular facility locations would be to task an employee of DOCCS with a manual search through file cabinets. This would require the employee to search through hundreds of UI folders and make a note of those involving the location(s) of interest. The employee would then have to collate those files chronologically to determine whether they fit within a given date range (id., ¶ 6). Mr. Quackenbush concludes that the time and resources attendant with such a manual search would represent an undue, excessive administrative hardship upon facility staff (id., ¶ 7).
Defendant does not assert that the request is overly broad, that the documents do not exist, or that the requested documents are not material and necessary.
As the Court finds that Claimant has established a rational basis for the documents that refer or relate to any violent incidents that occurred in the North Yard at Clinton from October 2014 through April 2018, the request to compel Defendant to respond to Demand 13 is granted.
Therefore, it is further ORDERED that Defendant is to provide the documents as set forth above to Claimant, at his cost, within ninety (90) days of the date of filing this Decision and Order.
For the reasons set forth above, Claimant's Motion to Compel is granted in part.
February 13, 2020
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimants' Motion: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support and Exhibits Attached 1 Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibit Attached 2 Reply Affirmation 3 Letter from Claimant's Counsel dated January 8, 2020 4 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer