Claimant has made his seventh application to the Court, again pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to compel responses to document
demands and interrogatories ( M-75369). Defendant opposes that application and
has separately moved for a protective order regarding claimant’s second
set of requests for interrogatories and requests for documents
As previously noted, claimant’s reliance on the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is misplaced, as “[T]hose rules have no application to actions
pending in the New York State Court of Claims” (Brown v State of New
York, Claim No. 103284, Motion Nos. M-62961, CM-62991, UID #2001-015-136,
[April 4, 2001, Collins, J.]). The defendant has a right to expect that even a
pro se claimant will be required to proceed in accordance with the law
and the published rules of the Court (Id. [citations omitted]).
Assuming arguendo claimant had made proper use of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules, the motion would nevertheless be denied. Claimant has filed and served
four separate discovery demands, yet on this application has neither indicated
nor attached the demands for which he seeks to compel responses (see
claimant’s Notices of Motion). Generally, a party is entitled to
“full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution
or defense of an action” (CPLR § 3101[a]). However, the Court will
not attempt to determine which demands are the subject of the motion
(see Banks v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 4, 2008,
Ferreira, J., Claim No. 106549, Motion No. M-74502, UID #2008-039-082), nor will
it attempt to parse the demands into meaningful and answerable requests.
Accordingly, claimant’s application to compel is denied.
Turning to defendant’s application, each of the four filed demands
directed to as many as 28 individual “defendants” is patently
improper (see Fagbewest v State of New York, Ct Cl, Aug. 19, 2003,
Lebous, J., Claim No. 104241, Motion Nos. M-66992, M-67010, M-67063, M-67091,
UID # 2003-019-555 [questions which seek answers from specific witnesses are not
interrogatories]) as well as overbroad and burdensome. Moreover, the demands
predominantly seek information and documents subsequent and unrelated to the
alleged release of claimant’s name by prison officials on or about May 24,
2007. As examples of this, claimant seeks information on incidents occurring
between March 3, 2008 and July 3, 2008, the treatment of prisoners with
diabetes, and his medical records. By virtue of the foregoing the Court finds a
protective order is warranted (CPLR 3103). As such, the second set of
interrogatories and the second demand for production, each dated July 15, 2008,
In an effort to expedite this matter, the Court will direct defendant, State of
New York to produce any report involving claimant created on or about May 24,
2007 relating to the release of his name within 60 days of the filed date of
this decision and order.
Accordingly, claimant’s motion M-75369 to compel is denied in its
entirety and defendant’s motion M-75386 is granted.
1. Claimant’s Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit;
2. Affirmation in Opposition of Assistant Attorney General Roberto
1. Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Supporting Affirmation, with
2. “Reply to Defendant’s Notice of Motion”.
Claim; Verified Answer