New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SALAAM v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-039-092, Claim No. 105537, Motion Nos. M-71934, CM-72055


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion for an order granting his request for various items of discovery is denied, and defendant’s cross motion for a protective order with respect to claimant’s request for any and all materials prepared in anticipation of trial and any and all privileged matters is granted pursuant to CPLR 3101 (b) and (d) (2). Claimant does not contend that defendant failed to respond to or comply with any request but rather this appears to be claimant’s first demand for discovery. In response, defendant has provided claimant with various documents and stated its objections to those items it refuses to disclose. Thus, defendant has responded to claimant’s initial request for discovery and claimant’s motion must therefore be denied.

Case Information

UID:
2008-039-092
Claimant(s):
RASOOL SALAAM
Claimant short name:
SALAAM
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105537
Motion number(s):
M-71934
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-72055
Judge:
James H. Ferreira
Claimant’s attorney:
Rasool Salaam, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Michele M. WallsAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 15, 2008
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant seeks damages for injuries he allegedly suffered on September 25, 2001 when correction officers made threats and committed various offenses against him while he was an inmate at the Upstate Correctional Facility. Trial was scheduled to commence on June 7, 2006 and was adjourned without date. Claimant now moves the Court for an order granting his request for various items of discovery. In opposition to the motion, defendant served a response to claimant’s demand. Defendant also cross moves the Court for a protective order with respect to claimant’s demands for “any and all materials prepared in anticipation of trial by the state . . .” and “any and all privileged matters.”
Civil Practice Law and Rules 3101 (a) provides that “ [t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.”
Moreover, “[a] trial court has broad discretion in controlling discovery” (Johanson Resources, Inc. v La Vallee, 298 AD2d 659, 661 [2002]). Claimant does not contend that defendant has failed to respond to or comply with any request but rather, based upon the proof before the Court, claimant is merely making his initial demand for discovery by motion. In response thereto, Defendant has provided claimant with various documents and stated its objections to those items it refuses to disclose. Thus, the Court concludes that claimant’s initial request for discovery has been satisfied and the motion must be denied as moot.
The Court also grants defendant’s request for a protective order to the extent that claimant seeks “any and all materials prepared in anticipation of trial by the state . . .” and “any and all privileged matters.” CPLR 3101 (b) provides that “[u]pon objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege, privileged matter shall not be obtainable.” Additionally, CPLR 3101 (d) (2) governs the disclosure of material prepared in anticipation of trial, and the Court finds that claimant has not satisfied “the required showing” thereunder to permit disclosure of such materials.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that M-71934 is hereby denied as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that CM-72055 is granted and a protective order is hereby issued with respect to the disclosure to claimant of any and all materials prepared in anticipation of trial by the state and any and all privileged matters.
September 15, 2008
Albany, New York
HON. JAMES H. FERREIRA
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered
:
  1. Notice of Motion to Obtain Material Prepared For Litigation or Trial dated June 25, 2006;
  2. Affidavit in Support of Motion to Obtain Material Prepared for Litigation or Trial by Rasool Salaam, signed on June 24, 2006;
  3. Letter Response by Michele M. Walls, AAG dated July 24, 2006 with exhibits;
  4. Notice of Cross Motion for Protective Order dated July 26, 2006;
  5. Affirmation in Opposition and in Support of Cross Motion for Protective Order by Michele M. Walls, AAG dated July 26, 2006 with exhibits; and
  6. Letter dated August 14, 2006 from claimant.