For the reasons set forth below, the motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the
State to produce certain documents made by pro se Claimant, Anthony D.
Amaker, is granted in part and denied in part.
Claimant alleges in his Claim that certain personal items were removed from his
cell by State employees at Upstate Correctional Facility (Upstate). He further
asserts that, on November 16, 2002, he was transferred to another facility so he
could attend a Federal court appearance; that a correction officer took control
of Claimant’s property but did not complete an I-64 form; that Claimant
received his property on February 4, 2003 and realized then that items of his
property were missing.
Claimant asserts, in his affidavit submitted in support of his motion, that he
served a Notice for Discovery and Inspection upon Defendant on January 12, 2007.
He further avers that, on or about March 6, 2007, Defendant’s counsel
served a response to the Demand and objected to Demands 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Claimant seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond to these six
The State has not opposed Claimant’s motion. Attached to
Claimant’s motion is an Affidavit of Service wherein Mr. Amaker avers he
served the motion papers upon Defendant’s counsel on April 4, 2007. The
Court has some doubt as to the veracity of the statement as the notary public
who witnessed Claimant’s signature stated that the document was sworn to
before her on April 2, 2007 – two days before the papers were allegedly
mailed. In any event, the Court will consider the motion but will not consider
the State to be in default for failing to respond to the motion since there is
some doubt in the Court’s mind as to whether the motion was served upon
Claimant’s Demand 2 seeks package room receipts from Clinton Correctional
Facility (Clinton) from June 12, 1998 to present. Defendant objects on the
basis that the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous.
Defense counsel further asserts that such documents are not relevant to this
Claim. While the Claim alleges that property was lost or stolen while Claimant
was housed at Upstate, it also appears to assert that property Claimant had at
Clinton was lost during his time at Upstate and was not transferred from Upstate
to Great Meadow Correctional Facility. The Court finds this request, as
written, to be overbroad. Claimant should limit his request to the time period
he was housed at Clinton. The motion to compel a response to Demand 2 is
Claimant’s Demand 8 seeks all directives and regulations dealing with
disposal of inmates’ personal property. The State objects to the Demand
as overly broad and insufficiently specific so as to be burdensome and to be
potentially inclusive of privileged, confidential and security-sensitive
information. Counsel also states that directives and regulations are available
to inmates in the law libraries of correctional facilities.
Claimant has failed to establish the relevance of this request to his Claim.
The Claim appears to assert the State negligently cared for Claimant’s
property, resulting in items being lost. This request relates to disposal of
property. The motion to compel a response to Demand 8 is denied.
Demand 9 seeks all rules, regulations, and directives regarding
“limitation of personal property while in special housing unit and general
population” (Notice for Discovery and Inspection of Documents dated
January 12, 2007). Defendant’s objection to Demand 9 is exactly the same
as to Demand 8. The Court finds this request, as written, to be overbroad.
Claimant should limit the request to a reasonable period of time around the date
his Claim accrued. The motion to compel a response to Demand 9 is denied.
Demand 10 seeks the names of all officers in charge of handling property in
Upstate and Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Defendant objects to the Demand
as overly broad and insufficiently specific so as to be burdensome and
potentially inclusive of privileged, confidential or security-sensitive
information, including information not relevant to the Claim. The Court finds
this request, as written, to be overbroad. Claimant should limit the request to
a reasonable period of time around the date his Claim accrued. The motion to
compel a response to Demand 10 is denied.
Demand 11 seeks a copy of Directive 4917. The State’s response is that
Directive 4917 is available for inmate use in the facility law library.
Defendant has offered no objection to this Demand. Defendant is directed to
produce a copy of the directive within forty-five (45) days of the date of
filing of this Decision and Order.
Demand 12 seeks any and all log book entries made upon the issuance of
“personal property between October 31, 2001 to February 10, 2003 between
Upstate C.F., Sing Sing C.F. and Great Meadow C.F.” (Notice for Discovery
and Inspection dated January 12, 2007). Defendant objects to this demand as
overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Defense counsel asserts
that the documents sought are neither relevant to the subject matter of the
litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
As stated above, the Claim appears to allege that items of Claimant’s
property were lost or stolen at Upstate. Claimant appears to have arrived at
Upstate on October 31, 2001. The Court agrees with defense counsel that the
Demand is overbroad as written. Claimant should be more specific as to what log
book entries he is seeking as well as limit his requests to the specific time
period he was housed in each facility. The motion to compel a response to
Demand 12 is denied.