Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves for the second time to compel the State of New
York to comply with his Demand for Discovery and Inspection dated November 18,
2002 pursuant to CPLR 3124. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes
The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this
DECISION AND ORDER, Claim No. 106467-A, Motion No. M-66605, filed June 11,
"CLAIMANT'S DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND/OR INSPECTION", dated November 18, 2002,
and filed November 22, 2002.
"RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION", dated June 27, 2003, and
filed June 30, 2003.
"Notice of Second Motion to Compel Discovery and Inspection", Motion No.
M-67207, dated July 15, 2003, and filed July 28, 2003.
Affidavit of Jose Rivera, sworn to July 21, 2003, with attachment.
Affirmation of James E. Shoemaker, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated August
14, 2003, and filed August 18, 2003.
Claimant previously filed a motion to compel a satisfactory response from the
State to his Demand for Discovery and Inspection dated November 18, 2002
(hereinafter "Demand"). This court directed the State to provide an itemized
response to claimant's Demand, correlated to claimant's numbered paragraphs,
within thirty days of the entry of said Decision & Order. (Rivera v
State of New York
, Ct Cl, June 11, 2003, Lebous, J., Claim No. 106467-A,
Motion No. M-66605). By way of this second motion, claimant indicates that he
has since received a response from the State as directed by the
but contends that said response is
inadequate. More specifically, claimant objects to the State's responses to
questions #2 and #3. With respect to the various subdivisions of question #2,
claimant disputes the State's refusal to supply him a copy of the Southport
Correctional Facility Policy and Procedure Manual; Southport Correctional
Facility Special Housing Unit Manual; Master Index of all documents, materials
and records held at Southport Correctional Facility; and Master Index of all the
documents, materials and records, held by the New York State Department of
Correctional Services. (Demand #d-2 [a-d]). The State's response indicated
that these items were either available in the prison law library and/or
obtainable via a freedom of information request. The court has reviewed these
specific demands and responses and finds the State's responses are adequate.
Moreover, the court finds that the requested documents are neither material nor
relevant to this simple bailment claim.
With respect to question #3, claimant had asked for photographs or videotapes
regarding the lost property and argues that the State is mandated to preserve
videotapes for 3 years. (Claimant's Affidavit, ¶ 34). The State's
discovery response indicated, upon information and belief, that no such items
exist. The court finds the State's response to question #3 to be
Finally, claimant raises the prospect of encumbering his prison account to
cover the cost of various photocopying charges. This claimant has previously
raised this request in other claims which this court has denied and the same
request will be denied here. (Rivera v State of New York
, Ct Cl, July
16, 2002, Lebous J., Claim No. 105785, Motion Nos. M-65234 & M-65320 [UID
No. 2002-019-548]; Rivera v State of New York
, Ct Cl, September 6, 2002,
Lebous, J., Claim No. 106263, Motion No. M-65583 [UID No.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that claimant's motion, Motion No. M-67207, is