For the reasons set forth below, Claimant’s motion to compel the State to
respond to discovery demands and interrogatories is denied.
Claimant alleges that in August 2003, he was told that he would be transferred
from Dorm G-1 at Bare Hill Correctional Facility to Dorm E-2. Claimant contends
that he had been placed in Dorm G-1 for medical reasons because of certain
features in that dorm, such as rails in the shower and bathroom. Claimant
asserts that he filed a grievance protesting his proposed move, that the
grievance committee concluded that Claimant's account was correct and, thus,
that he could be moved from Dorm G-1 only at the direction of a doctor.
A month later, on September 16, 2003, Claimant again was informed that he would
be moved from Dorm G-1, this time to the annex part of the facility, Dorm M-2.
He maintains that again he protested, but that a sergeant who had been present
at the first grievance hearing stated that Claimant's medical records did not
indicate that he had to be housed in the main part of the facility. Claimant
asserts that when he went to sick call, the nurse reviewed his chart and said
that he had to be housed in the main facility. During the time Claimant was
housed at Dorm M-2, he alleges that he was unable to obtain his special diet for
hypertension. On September 26, 2003, he was moved back to a dorm in the main
facility. Claimant says that the officer in charge at Dorm M-2 required
Claimant to carry his own, very heavy, bags, although he protested that he was
restricted from heavy lifting by the doctor. While attempting to carry a duffel
bag weighing approximately 100 pounds, Claimant fell and struck his head.
The claim sets out four causes of action: for physical injuries caused by
Claimant’s inability to obtain his special diet for a period of time; for
injuries suffered when he was forced to carry a heavy bag and, as a result, fell
and hit his head; for inadequate medical treatment received following the blow
to his head; and for "illegally" moving Claimant from the main facility to the
annex on September 16, 2003.
Claimant asserts that on August 2, 2006 he sent a second set of interrogatories
and a demand for production of documents to the
He followed up on this
demand with a letter to Assistant Attorney General Aronson dated August 28, 2006
stating that Claimant would make a motion to compel disclosure if he did not
receive a response to his discovery requests within seven days of receipt of the
letter. Mr. Aronson asserts that he responded to Claimant’s August 28,
2006 letter by letter dated September 11, 2006, which stated that he needed
additional time to review, investigate and prepare appropriate responses to
Claimant’s demands. Claimant considered counsel’s response a delay
tactic and prepared the instant motion on September 21, 2006.
In opposition to the motion, Defense counsel asserts that concurrent with the
service of his opposition papers dated October 17, 2006, he served and filed his
responses to Claimant’s interrogatories and request for
He further asserts that he
objected to several requests and did not respond to those items.
Since Defendant now has provided responses and documents to Claimant, the Court
concludes that the motion to compel the State to respond is moot. Thus,
Claimant’s motion is denied. If Claimant objects to any specific
response(s) provided to his interrogatories and demand for production, he may
make the appropriate motion.
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on claimant’s
motion to compel:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support,
Addendum to Notice of Motion and