Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Borrello v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Services

March 21, 2006

LISA M. BORRELLO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; RONALD MOSCICKI, SUPERINTENDENT OF LAKEVIEW SHOCK INCARCERATION CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; MICHAEL DECISION MARSHALL, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF LAKEVIEW SHOCK & INCARCERATION CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; RICHARD MOFFIT, FOOD ORDER SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR AT LAKEVIEW SHOCK INCARCERATION CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; BRIAN MCKENNA, HEAD COOK AND SUPERVISOR AT THE LAKEVIEW SHOCK INCARCERATION CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; AMY FARNHAM, HEAD COOK AT THE LAKEVIEW SHOCK INCARCERATION CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; AND DAWN RAYNOR, HEAD COOK AND SUPERVISOR AT THE LAKEVIEW SHOCK INCARCERATION CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Hugh B. Scott

Before the Court are the plaintiff's motions to compel discovery (Docket No. 153, 156 and 159);*fn1 as well as the defendants' cross-motion to compel (Docket No. 164).

Borrello seeks further responses from the defendants as to Interrogatory Requests Nos. 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 (Docket No. 155 at page 3; Docket No. 157 at ¶¶ 14a -b). These interrogatories seek as follows:

8. Please state if you have compiled any documents that contain statistics, charts, graphs or reports relative to the genders of cooks, head cooks and/or other department employees for the years 1994 through the present. If so, please provide any and all such documents.

13. Please state separately for each year, the number of department employees including probationary employees, and their genders, who were discharged, terminated, transferred, or resigned from Lakeview commencing with 1990 and for each year thereafter through the present.

14. Please state the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all females that have been employed at Lakeview commencing with 1990 and for each year thereafter through the present, including the dates of their employment and the positions that they held, including job titles and pay grades.

15. Please state the names, addresses, telephone numbers and genders of all persons employed at Lakeview who have requested promotions commencing in 1990 and for each year thereafter through the present, including title of the job that they applied for and its pay grade.

16. Please state the names, addresses, telephone numbers and genders of all persons who received a promotion while they were employed at Lakeview commencing with 1990 and for each year thereafter through the present, including the dates of the promotions and the types of promotions received, including job titles and pay grades.

17. Please state the names, addresses, telephone numbers and genders of all persons who received a demotion while they were employed at Lakeview commencing with 1990 and for each year thereafter through the present, including the date of the demotion, the type of demotion received, and the old and new job titles and pay grades.

18. Please state the names, addresses, telephone numbers and genders of all persons employed at Lakeview who have transferred to any other position of employment commencing in 1990 and for each year thereafter through the present including the title of the job that they were transferred to, its location and pay grade.

If the defendants have compiled information regarding the gender of cooks as described in Interrogatory No. 8, it should be produced within 30 days. If no such information exits, the defendants shall provide a written statement in that regard. The Court finds that Interrogatories Nos. 13-18 are overly broad, unduly burdensome and seek information beyond the scope of the plaintiff's claims. The defendants need not respond to these requests.

The plaintiff also seeks the personnel files of each of the civilian cooks and head cooks at Lakeview, in addition to the personnel files of each of the defendants as requested in Document Demands Nos. 14, 29, 33, 36, 39, 42 - 48, 50-53. (Docket Nos. 155 at page 6; 157 at ¶14) Further, the plaintiff seeks responses to Demand Nos. 93, 104, 105, 106, 128, 145, 152, and 153. (Docket Nos. 155 at page 6; 156 at ¶14)

With respect to the personnel files (Demand Nos. 14, 29, 33, 36, 39, 42 - 48, 50-53), the defendants object to producing these files citing privacy concerns as well as §50-a of the New York State Civil Rights Law and §96(1) of the New York Public Officers Law. However, these state statutes do not act as an absolute bar to disclosure in federal court civil rights actions. See Martin v. Lamb, 122 F.R.D. 143, 146 (W.D.N.Y. 1988); Sheppard v. Phoenix, 1998 WL 397846 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Mercado v. Division of New York State Police, 989 F.Supp. 521, (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Sidari v. Orleans County, 174 F.R.D. 275 (W.D.N.Y. 1996); Hauch v. County of Nassau, 1987 WL 12557 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) However, that does not mean the state statutes need be given no weight or effect. In the instant case, the defendants are directed, within 30 days of the date of this Order, to produce the identified personnel files to plaintiff's counsel subject to the following conditions:

(1) The documents are to be marked confidential.

(2) The documents are to be produced to plaintiff's counsel "for attorneys eyes only;" except as stated below, the documents may not be disclosed to the plaintiff or any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.