On June 21, 2000, the following papers, numbered 1 to 10, were read on motions
by Claimant to compel discovery:
1, 2, 3 Notice of Motion (M-61335), Affidavit and Affirmation Annexed
4 Claimant's letter dated March 28, 2000
5, 6, 7 Notice of Motion (M-61686), Affirmation, Affidavit and Exhibits
8 Claimant's Injunction to Motion of Discovery Affidavit (sic)
9 Opposing Affirmation
10 Filed Papers: Claim
Upon the foregoing papers, the motions are denied.
It appears that the Defendant was never served with Motion No. M-61335, filed
on March 14, 2000, despite an affidavit of service to that effect. Regardless,
on May 10, 2000, Claimant filed Motion No. M-61686, seeking identical relief, to
which the Defendant has responded. Thus, for the sake of clarity, Motion No.
M-61335 is denied, and I will address the latter motion.
Motion No. M-61686 seeks an order compelling the Defendant to produce certain
documents, for which Claimant previously made a demand. Claimant attaches an
affirmation of good faith, reflecting his purported attempts to obtain these
documents without my intervention. It appears that a response was provided to
Claimant on or about May 15, 2000, but he was not satisfied with the Defendant's
response, which led to his submission of his "Injunction [sic] to Motion"
Thereafter the Defendant filed its affirmation in opposition in which it
addresses each item sought by Claimant in his latest submission. With respect
to the renewed request for a copy of the daily log book located in the hallway
between B block and the mess hall, where there is a metal detector and an
officer's post, the Defendant asserts that Auburn authorities have reported that
the only log book between those two points logs the issuance of keys to other
correction officers, and has no relevance to the instant claim, irrespective of
security concerns for the facility, but allows that an in camera
inspection would obviate that concern.
The claim herein alleges that an unknown inmate assaulted Claimant with a razor
blade while he was playing cards in the mess hall recreation area. He alleges
that an officer left his post at the officer's desk and that there was no
security. Thus Claimant alleges the Defendant's negligence by not taking
security measures, and that he was seriously injured as a result thereof. Given
the affirmation of the Defendant that this sought after log book only logs the
issuance of keys, as well as the putative security concerns if it were to be
released, but more importantly, the absence of any argument that demonstrates
how such information (to wit, the issuance of keys) is relevant to the
underlying claim, that part of the motion is denied. While Claimant avers that
the he is looking to establish that the metal detector was never used, he has
made no showing that the log book he has demanded does anything more than log
the issuance of keys. I specifically decline the suggestion of an in
camera inspection, as I find that the material sought does not appear to
have any relevance to the claim. This matter is being scheduled for trial, and
if Claimant can show, through testimony, that the representations made by the
Defendant are inaccurate, or misleading, I will revisit this issue. However,
based upon the motion, and the response by the Defendant, I fail to see the
relevance at this time.
As to the second item sought, the Defendant has supplied those pages of the
daily log book in the hospital and covering the isolation room, for the five
days prior to Claimant's transfer to Great Meadow Correctional Facility, with
the redaction of information relating to other inmates. Accordingly, that part
of the motion is denied as moot.
As to the final item sought, the daily log book located in the recreational
area, inside of the mess hall, the Defendant affirms that it has been advised by
the Auburn authorities, that no such log book is posted in that area.
Accordingly, the motion is denied in all respects.