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.

Vasquez v. Russel

United States District Court, N.D. New York

April 26, 2017

KIM VASQUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
PETER RUSSEL, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DANIEL J. STEWART United States Magistrate Judge.

         Presently 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.

         After 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 follows:

         I. Demand for Trial Transcript

         Plaintiff 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.

         II. Demand for Cassette Tape

         Plaintiff 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 therefore denied.

         III. Video Surveillance

         Plaintiff 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.

         IV. Names of Officers Involved in Use of Force Against Plaintiff

         Plaintiff 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.

         V. Name of the Nurse who Injected Plaintiff with Medication on August 13, 2015

         In his 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.

         VI. First Name of ...


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.