New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VALLADE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-030-552, Claim No. 105690, Motion No. M-66644


Synopsis


Pro se inmate's motion to compel discover denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-030-552
Claimant(s):
ISHMAEL VALLADE
Claimant short name:
VALLADE
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105690
Motion number(s):
M-66644
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
ISHMAEL VALLADE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: MARY B. KAVANEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 11, 2003
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 6 were read and considered on Claimant's motion


for an Order compelling disclosure brought pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §3124:

  1. Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery by Ishmael Vallade, Claimant
  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Mary B. Kavaney, Assistant Attorney General and accompanying exhibits
3-6 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer; Motion for Request for Production of Documents Pursuant to CPLR §3120, Requesting for Discovery and Inspection of Documents

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law, the motion is disposed of as follows:

In his Claim, Claimant alleges that Defendant's agents used excessive force while he was moved from a reception area holding cell at Downstate Correctional Facility (hereafter Downstate) on or about March 20, 2001. Two extensive requests for the production of documents were filed with the Clerk of this Court on August 26, 2002 and September 5, 2002, and received by the Attorney General's Office on approximately the same dates. The first request does not ask for anything as far as this Court can decipher, but rather gives definitions of what information - other than the document itself - is intended by any request for documents. [See, Exhibit 2, Affirmation in Opposition]. The second request does specify some documents, as well as some items that are not within the scope of discovery. [See, Exhibit 3, Affirmation in Opposition]; Civil Practice Law and Rules §3101.

In any event, Defendant has responded to the request by production of facility records and notations, including log books for the relevant day. [Exhibit 4, Affirmation in Opposition]. These records include the names of whatever personnel were involved with Claimant at the facility. Claimant's requests for all inmates received on that date, including their DIN numbers, as well as the names and badge numbers of all department heads, etc., without a more specific showing of materiality and relevance, is denied as overbroad and as potentially implicating personal privacy concerns. See, Civil Rights Law §50-a .

Accordingly, Claimant's Motion Number M-66644 is in all respects denied as moot, or otherwise denied as seeking material outside the scope of discovery. See, generally, Civil Practice Law and Rules §3101.


July 11, 2003
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims