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.

Robinson v. State

May 12, 2010

LINDA L. ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeremiah J. Mccarthy United States Magistrate Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

This case was referred to me by Hon. William M. Skretny for supervision of pretrial proceedings [8].*fn1 Before me is plaintiff's motion to compel [27]. Oral argument of the motion was held on January 20 2010. For the following reasons, I order that plaintiff's motion to compel be denied.*fn2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an employee of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), alleges that while employed at the Orleans Correctional Facility, she was discriminated against by defendants with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment because of her age, gender and disability. She alleges violations of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act ("ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §1983, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and the New York Human Rights Law ("HRL"), as well as various tort causes of action. Complaint [1].*fn3

Plaintiff seeks production of certain documents, including personnel files maintained by DOCS as well as DOCS Diversity Management file, which have not been produced because the parties have been unable to agree upon a confidentiality stipulation.

ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Compel

On March 30, 2009 plaintiff served various deposition notices on defendants. Logan-Baldwin affirmation [28], ¶2. After receiving defendants' initial mandatory disclosures on April 13, 2009, depositions were scheduled with the expectation that defendants' remaining disclosures would be produced in advance of the scheduled depositions. Id., ¶3. "To expedite the production of [personnel files]", plaintiff's counsel forwarded to defendants a proposed confidentiality stipulation on August 18, 2009. Id, ¶4, Ex. 4. On August 20, 2009, plaintiff subpoenaed documents regarding investigations conducted by Mary Mayville, DOCS Diversity Management Investigator, concerning complaints made by plaintiff and complaints made by or about the defendants. Id., ¶5, Ex. 5. Defendants responded with their own proposed confidentiality stipulation on August 28, 2009. Id., Ex. 6.

By letter dated September 24, 2009, plaintiff's counsel rejected the defendants' proposed confidentiality stipulation asserting, inter alia, that it "interferes with my client's right to be fully and effectively represented by me". Id., Ex. 7. As a compromise, plaintiff's counsel indicated that she would accept the personnel files with redaction of social security numbers and other confidential identifiers. Id. Plaintiff's counsel also asked defendants to address the fact that page 19 of the April 28, 2008 fax from Ms. Mayville to Bob Raymond was cropped. Id.

On October 20, 2009 defendants mailed plaintiff a second proposed confidentiality stipulation. Cadle declaration [31], Ex. C. Plaintiff filed this motion the following day. It seeks production of the defendants', plaintiff's and certain non-parties' personnel files and the documents from DOCS Office of Diversity Management requested in the her August 20, 2009 subpoena, which have not been produced because of the pending dispute over the language of the confidentiality stipulation. Cadle declaration [31], ¶4. Plaintiff also seeks page 19 of the April 28, 2008 fax from Ms. Mayville to Bob Raymond, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff's memorandum of law [29], p. 12; Cadle declaration [31], ¶4.

1. DOCS Files

Plaintiff alleges that "[n]ot only has defense counsel withheld information that she knew or should have known support an application for a liability judgment for plaintiff, she now compounds the harm to plaintiff by making unsupportable arguments to conceal or suppress the evidence supporting judgment against the defendants." Logan-Baldwin affirmation [32], ¶14. This allegation is baseless. The record demonstrates defendants have not been unwilling to produce these materials. Rather, they are willing to do so subject to certain confidentiality terms which the parties are unable to agree upon.

Defendants argue that "unrestricted disclosure of [discrimination complaint] investigations could have a chilling effect on these investigations." Cadle declaration [31], ¶12. They also argue that these records are deemed confidential under Section 50-a of the New York Civil Rights Law, which obligates defense counsel to protect the confidentiality of those records pursuant to Section 89 of the New York Public Officers Law. Id., ¶6. Plaintiff is correct that defendants' "mere incantation of N.Y. Civil Rights Law 50-a alone does not provide a basis to withhold what otherwise appears to be discoverable and potentially highly relevant information from plaintiff". Smith v. Goord, 222 F.R.D. 238, 243 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). See Logan-Baldwin affirmation [32], ¶14. However, there are also "legitimate privacy interests which militate against indiscriminate disclosure of inherently personal information concerning [DOCS] employees and their families." Smith, 222 F.R.D. at 243.

Plaintiff claims that "the restrictions defense counsel has sought and continues to seek are proof of defendants' efforts to suppress evidence of their multiple violations of plaintiff's federal and New York civil rights." Logan-Baldwin affirmation [32], n. 6. Therefore, she requests that I order her ...


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.