Opinion
# 2011-041-030 Claim No. 118907 Motion # 2011-041-030 Claim No. M-79588 # 2011-041-030 Claim No. CM-80053
09-09-2011
WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to compel production of Department of Correctional Services records and documents in inmate assault claim is granted in part and denied in part, after in camera review. Case information
UID: 2011-041-030 Claimant(s): CALVIN WILLIAMS Claimant short name: WILLIAMS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) The caption is amended sua sponte to reflect the only : proper defendant. Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 118907 Motion number(s): M-79588, CM-80053 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANK P. MILANO CALVIN WILLIAMS Claimant's attorney: Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: September 9, 2011 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant moves for an order compelling production of all documents and items relating to an assault upon claimant by two fellow inmates on June 1, 2010 at Clinton Correctional Facility. The Court notes that defendant has thus far provided substantial disclosure of documents to claimant and has provided to the Court, for in camera inspection, the balance of the available documents and items relevant to claimant's demand.
The claim, involving an inmate-on-inmate assault cause of action, alleges that on June 1, 2010, at approximately 9:00 p.m., in the yard of the Clinton Correctional Facility, claimant was stabbed by a fellow inmate (Mercedes), and then punched by another fellow inmate (Cooper). The claim further states that correction officers present in the yard were "not paying attention to the immediate area around them" and that the correction officers present "could've prevented [the assault] if they were'nt (sic) talking and joking with each other."
The claim specifically alleges that defendant failed to "provide adaquate (sic) security for me in the yard."
The contested documents and items which defendant has refused to disclose absent a court order generally consist of the following: A videotape depicting the assault and its aftermath in the yard of the Clinton Correctional Facility; investigative documents and reports of defendant's internal "CIU Team" investigation of the assault on claimant; photographs and medical information regarding the inmate assailants and misbehavior reports and disciplinary records of Mercedes and Cooper.
The following well-settled principles guide the Court's inquiry: "Disclosure provisions of the CPLR are to be liberally construed; however, the scope of permissible discovery is not entirely unlimited and the trial court is invested with broad discretion to supervise discovery . . ." (NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 192 AD2d 1032, 1033 [3d Dept 1993]).
"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]).
A party's failure to object to discovery demands within 20 days of service of the request (see CPLR 3122 [a]) precludes inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to information privileged under CPLR 3101 or demands which are palpably improper (Jefferson v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1215 [3d Dept 2009]). A discovery demand is palpably improper if it seeks information that is "irrelevant, overbroad and burdensome" (Alford v Progressive Equity Funding Corp., 144 AD2d 756, 757 [3d Dept 1988]).
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."
Security within a correctional facility is a proper basis for denial of access to "sensitive" or confidential facility records (Lowrance v State of New York, 185 AD2d 268, 269 [2d Dept 1992]).
The Court will first consider the request for disclosure of "the video tape [sic] from which the disciplinary (tier 3) hearing based it's [sic] findings on." In response, the defendant has produced for in camera inspection a videotape depicting the alleged assault and the response of correction officers. The Court has viewed the videotape and finds that it is relevant and should be made available for claimant's review. Defendant and claimant agree that claimant should not be provided a copy of the videotape due to security concerns and claimant simply requests that he "be able to view the tape and bring it into evidence."
Defendant is ordered to preserve the videotape for trial and to provide claimant an opportunity to view the videotape within forty-five days of the filing of this Decision and Order. Claimant is instructed and ordered that the videotape is to be used solely for the purpose of this claim to the extent necessary for the litigation of the claim, it is not to be copied and it shall be viewed only by claimant, counsel, personnel employed to assist counsel, experts, court personnel, court reporters and/or monitors.
Defendant is granted a protective order with respect to its "CIU Team" investigation of the incident, except as to those documents and records which this decision and order specifically directs defendant to disclose. Although claimant alleges in the context of these motions that the attack was gang-related and that the "CIU Team" investigation could prove that, no such allegation was made in the claim. The claim involves a common inmate-on-inmate assault and claimant is aware of the identities of his assailants. None of the in camera records or documents provided by defendant as part of its "CIU Team" investigation show any prior knowledge or notice to defendant that claimant would be attacked.
Further, disclosure of the "CIU Team" records could compromise facility security, including the safety of "CIU Team" members and any inmates who cooperated with the "CIU Team."
With regard to the documents and records concerning inmates Mercedes and Cooper, respectively, the Court has reviewed the records provided by defendant, in camera, and orders disclosure as follows: Inmates Mercedes' and Cooper's disciplinary history for a period of three years prior to June 1, 2010, limited to disciplinary charges, sustained after hearing and appeal, if any, involving violence or threats of violence against staff or fellow inmates; all disciplinary or misbehavior reports issued to Mercedes and/or Cooper as a result of this incident; transcripts of hearings held in connection with disciplinary or misbehavior reports issued to Mercedes and/or Cooper as a result of this incident.
The records are to be provided within forty-five days of the filing of this Decision and Order. Claimant is instructed and ordered that the records disclosed are to be used solely for the purpose of this claim to the extent necessary for the litigation of the claim, and shall be disclosed only to counsel, personnel employed to assist counsel, experts, court personnel, court reporters and/or monitors.
Defendant is granted a protective order with respect to the documents provided in camera except as to records and documents specifically directed to be disclosed by this Decision and Order.
The materials reviewed in camera by the Court are returned to defendant's attorney, under separate cover, for disclosure as directed in this Decision and Order.
September 9, 2011
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed February 17, 2011;
2. Affidavit of Calvin Williams, sworn to February 8, 2011;
3. Affirmation in Opposition of Thomas R. Monjeau, dated April 8, 2011, and annexed exhibits;
4. Defendant's Response to Claimant's Discovery Demand, filed April 26, 2011;
5. Defendant's Response to Notice of Discovery and Inspection, filed June 13, 2011;
6. Affirmation in Support of Motion for Protective Order of Thomas R. Monjeau, dated June 24, 2011, and annexed exhibits;
7. Confidential materials submitted by Defendant for in camera review;
8. Claimant's Affidavit in Response to Motion for Protective Order, sworn to June 28, 2011.