Opinion
# 2013-015-431 Claim No. 113330 Motion No. M-83369
07-15-2013
WILLIE COCHRAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
In a claim alleging negligence arising from an inmate-on-inmate assault, claimant's motion to compel production of his assailant's criminal history records and prison disciplinary records was granted to the extent the defendant was directed to produce the records for the Court's in camera review.
Case information
UID: 2013-015-431 Claimant(s): WILLIE COCHRAN Claimant short name: COCHRAN Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 113330 Motion number(s): M-83369 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS Claimant's attorney: Willie Cochran, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: July 15, 2013 City: Saratoga Springs Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves for an Order compelling the defendant to provide the criminal history and disciplinary records of Ronald Trail, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
The claim asserts a cause of action for negligent supervision arising from injuries sustained by the claimant when Ronald Trail struck him in the head with a hammer on November 20, 2006. At the time of the incident claimant was attending the small engine vocational program at Great Meadow Correctional Facility. On this motion, claimant contends that the criminal history and prison disciplinary records of Inmate Trail are material and relevant to the issue of whether the defendant knew of should have known of Mr. Trail's propensity for violence and prohibited his access to the tool used to attack the claimant.
Defendant opposes the motion, first, on the ground that Inmate Trail's privacy interest in his criminal history and disciplinary records requires that he be served with a copy of the motion. Secondly, defendant argues that Mr. Trail's criminal record is irrelevant because all prisoners have a criminal record and claimant failed to establish a good faith belief that relevant information may be contained in the records sought. Lastly, defendant requests that any in camera review of the records be limited to disciplinary incidents which occurred on or before November 20, 2006.
CPLR 3101 (a) provides for the "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." The Court of Appeals has interpreted these words liberally to require the disclosure "of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; see also Wiggins v Kopko, 105 AD3d 1132 [3d Dept 2013]). The scope of this statute is very broad "consistent with New York's policy of permitting 'open and far-reaching pretrial discovery' " (Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 954 [1998] [citation omitted]). The party seeking disclosure need only establish either "that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims" (Gomez v State of New York, 106 AD3d 870, 872 [2d Dept 2013]; Jordan v Blue Circle Atl., 296 AD2d 752 [3d Dept 2002]). Thus, Courts have construed CPLR 3101 (a) "to afford parties all discovery that may aid in preparing their case" (JRDM Corp. v U.W. Marx, Inc., 237 AD2d 798, 799 [3d Dept 1997]). The party seeking to prevent the disclosure of relevant materials bears a heavy burden (Marten v Eden Park Health Servs., 250 AD2d 44, 46 [3d Dept 1998]).
The materials requested here, the claimant's assailant's criminal history and disciplinary records, insofar as they reveal prior violent conduct, are clearly relevant to the central issue in the case, i.e., whether the defendant knew or should have known of Mr. Trail's propensity for violence and taken precautions to prevent the assault upon the claimant (see Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247 [2002]; Barnette v City of New York, 96 AD3d 700 [2d Dept 2012]; Vasquez v State of New York, 68 AD3d 1275 [3d Dept 2009]). Defendant's contrary contention notwithstanding, not all inmates confined to prison have committed a violent crime and not all inmates subjected to disciplinary confinement while in prison have committed a violent act. The criminal history and disciplinary records of Inmate Trail are clearly relevant on the issue of notice, i.e., whether defendant knew or should have known of the risk of harm to the claimant (or others in his class) and taken appropriate steps to safeguard him from foreseeable harm (Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d at 253-254). Thus, the criminal history and disciplinary records of Inmate Trail are discoverable to the extent they reflect a history of violent conduct occurring prior to November 20, 2006 (see Wilson v State of New York, 36 AD2d 559 [3d Dept 1971]; Williams v State of New York, UID No. 2001-015-164 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., July 10, 2001]).
In support of defendant's contention that the motion was required to be served upon the non-party inmate whose records are sought, the defendant cites Montalvo v State of New York (UID No. 2007-044-532 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., May 10, 2007]) and Cardew v State of New York (UID No. 2008-009-007 [Ct Cl, Midey, J., Jan. 28, 2008]). Montalvo involved the requested disclosure of a non-party inmate's ambulatory health record in which the non-party inmate clearly had a privacy interest protected by the physician-patient privilege (CPLR 4504; see also Szmania v State of New York, 82 AD3d 1688 [4th Dept 2011] [patient was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the extent to which his waiver of the physician-patient privilege required disclosure of his medical records]). In other cases, an in camera review of a medical record was performed to safeguard against the disclosure of privileged medical information without requiring service of the motion on the patient (see Thompson v Pibly Residential Programs, Inc., 69 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2010]; J.Z. v South Oaks Hosp., 67 AD3d 645 [2d Dept 2009];Brier v State of New York, 95 AD2d 788 [2d Dept 1983]; Moore v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 89 AD2d 618 [2d Dept 1982]; Williams v State of New York; Villano v State of New York, 127 Misc 2d 761 [Ct Cl 1985]; Chapman v State of New York, UID No. 2012-048-039 [Ct Cl, Bruening, J., June 7, 2012]). Notably, while Judge Midey, in Cardew, did require service of a motion to compel discovery on the non-party inmate whose records were sought to be disclosed, and the non-party inmate objected to the disclosure, the disclosure of records relating to similar assaultive or violent behavior was nevertheless required. Here, Inmate Trail's medical records are not the subject of the instant motion and defendant has raised no privilege or other basis for concluding that Mr. Trail's criminal history records and prison disciplinary records are immune from disclosure. Moreover, Public Officer's Law § 96 (1) (k) permits the disclosure of such records pursuant to a court order. Accordingly, Inmate Trail's criminal history and prison disciplinary records are subject to disclosure to the extent they include entries regarding incidents of assaultive or violent conduct occurring prior to November 20, 2006. The Court will, however, exercise its discretion in supervising discovery by ordering an in camera inspection of the requested records.
Accordingly, claimant's motion is granted to the extent of requiring the defendant to submit two copies of Inmate Ronald Trail's criminal history and prison disciplinary records to this Court for in camera review within 30 days of the date this Decision and Order is filed. One copy is to be unredacted and the second copy is to be redacted to remove privileged and patently irrelevant information. Upon receipt of these documents, the Court will conduct its review and make a determination as to what records, if any, are subject to disclosure.
July 15, 2013
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion dated April 25, 2013;
2. Affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner dated May 21, 2013.