United States District Court, N.D. New York
J. STEWART United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff's Rule 37 Motion seeking to
compel Defendants to provide certain documents in accordance
with his Discovery Demands, dated January 5, 2017. Dkt. No.
31. Defendants have opposed Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.
Dkt. No. 35. A telephone conference was held, on the record,
on April 21, 2017, wherein all parties appeared and had a
full opportunity to present their respective positions. I
issued a decision on the record, in which, after applying the
requisite legal standards, I granted in part and denied in
part the Motion pending before the Court. I also provided
further detail regarding my reasoning and addressed the
specific issues raised by the parties.
due deliberation, and based up the Court's oral decision,
which is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein, it
is hereby, ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
(Dkt. No. 31) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
Demand for Trial Transcript
has made a demand for the trial transcript of a State court
proceeding entitled “In the Matter of the Commitment of
Kim Vasquez.” The Defendants indicate that they do not
possess any such transcript, and therefore their response to
the discovery demand is appropriate. Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel the transcript is therefore denied.
Demand for Cassette Tape
requests a copy of his recorded interview with the New York
State Department of Justice which allegedly occurred in
August 2015. Again, Defendants' counsel indicates that
the search for any such recorded interview has been made and
such an interview, if it exists, is not in their possession.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a different response is
originally requested a copy of video surveillance, dated
September 29, 2015, during the hours of 1:45 p.m. to 3:15
p.m., which allegedly shows Plaintiff being choked until he
fell unconscious. During the telephone conference, Plaintiff
indicated that the date in question was actually August 29,
2015, and not September 29. The Court therefore sua
sponte amends the demand to reflect the corrected date,
and directs that within thirty days of the filing date of
this Order that the Defendants respond to this amended
demand. Plaintiff's Motion, in this respect, is granted.
Names of Officers Involved in Use of Force Against
was provided documentation regarding CNYPC staff's use of
force against him. Unfortunately, he is unable to read the
names of the staff members involved. It was agreed that
Defense counsel would attempt to get someone with knowledge
to review the documents in question and provide a list to
Plaintiff of the names in a readable format. Plaintiff's
Motion, in this respect, is granted.
Name of the Nurse who Injected Plaintiff with Medication on
August 13, 2015
Complaint, Plaintiff identified the nurse in question as Thea
Joseph. See Dkt. No. 41 at ¶ 13. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with regard to this demand
is denied as moot.
First Name of ...