New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
SCOTT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-089, Claim No. 130585, Motion No. M-95960

Synopsis

Claimant's motion to compel discovery was denied.

Case information

UID: 2020-015-089
Claimant(s): RANDOLPH SCOTT
Claimant short name: SCOTT
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 130585
Motion number(s): M-95960
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney: Randolph Scott, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Thomas J. Reilly, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: November 9, 2020
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Claimant, a former inmate proceeding pro se, moves for an Order compelling discovery or, in the alternative, striking defendant's answer. While the claimant previously moved to compel disclosure in unrelated claims, this is the first such motion with respect to the instant claim.

Although claimant failed to support his motion with a copy of the claim, he indicates his claim arises from the failure of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) to permit him to use general library services during the time he was confined to the Special Housing Unit. With regard to the instant motion, claimant states that he "ask[ed] defendant to produce any type [of] documents with claimant['s] signature and cell number requesting General Library services while confined in [Special Housing Unit]" (Scott affidavit, 6). However, a request for these documents was not included in his notice for discovery and inspection (claimant's Exhibit A). Moreover, defense counsel states in opposition to the motion that, with the exception of various regulations requested by the claimant, the "[d]efendant fully responded to claimant's demands" (defendant's Exhibit A, Reilly affirmation, 4). To the extent defendant objected to claimant's request that he be provided copies of various DOCCS regulations, such information is publicly available and therefore equally accessible to the claimant. Defendant's objection to this request was therefore proper.

Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.

November 9, 2020

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of motion dated September 28, 2020;
  2. Affidavit in support sworn to September 29, 2020, with exhibits;
  3. Affirmation in opposition dated October 19, 2020, with Exhibits A-C.