New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
SCOTT v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-067, Claim No. 130050, Motion No. M-95525

Synopsis

Claimant's motion to compel discovery was denied except to the limited extent of requiring the defendant to inform the claimant of the fee copies of his actual x-rays and to provide the actual x-rays upon payment of the fee.

Case information

UID: 2020-015-067
Claimant(s): RANDOLPH SCOTT
Claimant short name: SCOTT
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 130050
Motion number(s): M-95525
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney: Randolph Scott, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: August 17, 2020
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Claimant moves to strike defendant's answer or, in the alternative, compel compliance with his demand for discovery.

Clamant, a former inmate proceeding pro se, seeks damages for the use of excessive force by Correction Officer Taylor on June 2, 2017. Although claimant indicates in his affidavit in support of the motion that he seeks to compel a response to his "second (2nd)' discovery demands," he failed to submit a copy of this demand in support of his motion (claimant's affidavit in support, 2). While this omission would ordinarily require denial of the motion for this reason alone, defense counsel's response to the motion includes both claimant's first demand for discovery, dated January 28, 2020, as well as claimant's second demand for discovery which did not require a response until March 20, 2020. While claimant's motion purports to seek a response to his second discovery demand, the response was not yet due at the time claimant filed his motion. To the extent claimant seeks a response to this second demand, therefore, the motion is denied.

Reviewing defendant's response to claimant's first discovery demand, with the exception of copies of the actual x-rays of the claimant's injuries,(1) defendant has provided claimant with documents responsive to his request, including copies of the relevant use of force reports, memoranda and copies of the photographs of claimant's injuries. Defense counsel also indicates that a copy of the transcript of the claimant's disciplinary hearing was provided on March 13, 2020 and, upon payment of the appropriate fee, copies of the actual x-rays taken following the use of force at issue will be provided. Lastly, defendant's objection to claimant's demand for a copy of the audio recording of his testimony at another inmate's disciplinary hearing is well founded as the relevance of this testimony is not apparent.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that claimant's motion is denied except to the limited extent of requiring the defendant to notify claimant of the fee to be paid for copies of the x-rays he requested within 30 days of the date this Decision and Order is filed, and it is further

ORDERED that defendant shall provide copies of the x-rays within 15 days following payment of the fee.

August 17, 2020

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of Motion dated March 16, 2020;
  2. Affidavit in Support sworn to March 16, 2020;
  3. Affirmation in Opposition dated March 19, 2020, with Exhibits A-D.

1. Claimant's first discovery demand included a request for "x-rays of claimant's injuries . . . taken of claimant's head, face and torso" (defendant's Exhibit A, demand # 1 [b]). If, in fact, claimant is requesting copies of his x-ray reports and/or medical records, it is not apparent from this demand.