Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves to compel discovery
pursuant to CPLR 3124. By Decision and Order dated June 3, 2008, this Court
denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause
of action finding that further discovery may establish that applicable
procedures or protocols for the transportation of inmates were violated
(Rivera v State of New York, [UID # 2008-015-044, Claim No. 114683,
Motion No. M-74616] Ct Cl, June 3, 2008, Collins, J.). In this regard it is
alleged in the claim that claimant was placed in full restraints for a period of
thirteen hours and deprived of food and water for a period of ten hours during
the course of a bus transfer between Great Meadow and Clinton correctional
facilities. The Court noted in its prior Decision and Order that the defendant
was required to respond only to those demands and interrogatories relevant and
material to the issue of claimant's restraint and feeding during the bus
Claimant's prior motion to compel discovery was denied as premature since
defendant's motion to dismiss had the effect of staying discovery pending
determination of the motion (see CPLR 3214 [b]). Claimant now moves to
compel responses to his Demand For Discovery and/or Inspection and First
Request For Interrogatories and Admissions. In opposition to the motion,
defense counsel relates in his affirmation that the subject discovery responses
were served upon the claimant on July 31, 2008.
As noted by claimant in reply to defendant's opposition to the motion the
defendant did not provide a copy of Directive 4919 although it indicated that a
redacted copy of same was attached to its response (defendant's Exhibit A,
response to demand #15). A copy of this Directive as redacted should therefore
be provided within twenty days of the date this Decision and Order is filed.
Defendant objected to claimant's demands numbered 16, 17 and 18 on the ground
that the directives demanded therein (4900, 4901 and 4906) are classified as
"D" directives and would pose a security threat if disclosed. Directive 4900
pertains to security in gate areas and secure posts. Inasmuch as this claim
involves procedures for the transfer of inmates having nothing to do with
security at gate areas and secure posts, the Court finds that in addition to
being classified as ineligible for circulation among inmates, Directive 4900 is
neither material nor necessary to the prosecution of this claim. With respect to
Directives 4901 [Transporting Prisoners] and 4906 [Transfer of Inmates]
defendant is directed to produce these directives for the Court's in camera
review within twenty days of the date this Decision and Order is filed
(see e.g. Banks v State of New York, [UID #2008-039-082, Claim No.
106549, Motion No. M-74502] Ct Cl, June 4, 2008, Ferreira, J. ).
In response to interrogatory number three requesting the manner in which
inmates are secured during a transfer between correctional facilities defendant
responded that "Inmates are secured pursuant to NYS DOCS Directive 4906".
Resolution of the propriety of the defendant's response to interrogatory number
three must await the court's in camera review of Directive 4906.
Lastly, the Court notes that defendant's answers to claimant's interrogatories
were not answered under oath as required by CPLR 3133. The defendant is
directed to provide its answers to interrogatories under oath within twenty days
of the date this Decision and Order is filed.
Based on the foregoing, the claimant's motion is granted to the extent