New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RASCOE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-038-505, Claim No. 112145, Motion No. M-75553


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion to compel discovery in claim for inmate-on-inmate assault is granted in part, and defendant is directed to produce disciplinary history of inmate who allegedly assaulted. Defendant’s offer to produce document for in camera review is rejected in the absence of assertion of privilege, confidentiality or other reason for non-disclosure

Case Information

UID:
2009-038-505
Claimant(s):
RONALD RASCOE
Claimant short name:
RASCOE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112145
Motion number(s):
M-75553
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Claimant’s attorney:
RONALD RASCOE, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York
Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 12, 2009
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, filed this claim seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was allegedly assaulted by another inmate on November 13, 2005. Specifically, claimant contends that while awaiting an escort from a visiting area to his Special Housing Unit, claimant was assaulted by Inmate Golden, #00-A-6753. Claimant seeks an order compelling defendant to respond to his discovery demands. Claimant’s motion is not supported by a copy of his discovery demand, which, he asserts, was filed with the Office of the Attorney General on or about March 21, 2006. His motion refers to a second discovery demand that was allegedly sent on August 18, 2008, along with “a letter of good faith” (Affidavit of Ronald Roscoe, ¶ 7, sworn to September 17, 2008). He specifically requests photographs or surveillance video of the incident and the disciplinary history sheet of Inmate Golden. In its response to claimant’s discovery demands, which was filed shortly after claimant’s motion was filed, defendant has produced a DVD of “what the video cameras captured on November 13, 2005” (see Defendant’s Response, dated Oct. 3, 2008, ¶ 1, Exhibit A), along with various documents (id., Exhibit B). Defendant states that although claimant’s discovery demands did not request Inmate Golden’s disciplinary history, it will produce that document for in camera review upon Court order.

In the absence of further reply or objection by claimant, his motion with respect to the materials produced as exhibits A and B will be denied as moot. Although claimant has not demonstrated that he requested Inmate Golden’s disciplinary history, it is manifest that that document will be required for claimant to litigate his claim (see Rascoe v State of New York, Claim No. 112145, Motion No. M-75787 [decided herewith]). Thus, the Court will order production of Inmate Golden’s disciplinary history. The Court notes that while defendant offers to produce the document for in camera review, no reason or explanation for the necessity of Court review is stated. If defense counsel is of the view that in camera review is warranted, he may submit a motion seeking a protective order for those parts of the document that are believed to be confidential, privileged or otherwise qualify for non-disclosure. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-75553 is GRANTED IN PART, and defendant is directed to produce to claimant the disciplinary history of Inmate Terry Golden, #00-A-6753, within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of this Decision and Order, and it is further

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-75553 is DENIED in all other respects.

January 12, 2009
Albany, New York

HON. W. BROOKS DEBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers considered
:


(1) Claim No. 112145, filed March 29, 2006;

(2) Notice of Motion, dated September 17, 2008;

(3) Affidavit in Support of Motion to Compell [sic] Discovery, sworn to September 17, 2008

(4) Defendant’s Response to Claimant’s Demands for Discovery and Production of Documents,

dated October 3, 2008;

(5) Defendant’s Response to Claimant’s Demands for Discovery and Production of Documents, dated October 22, 2008.