Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-759 - Burks v. Stickney et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-759 - Burks v. Stickney et al
April 19, 2017
PDF | More
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for relief from the restrictions imposed by the protective order in this case with regard to the portions of the OSI file now contested (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33) is GRANTED, except that plaintiff is not permitted to possess a personal copy of the OSI, and the documents at issue must be redacted as indicated herein; and it is further ORDERED that the clerk of court serve a copy of this order, as well as a copy of the challenged documents containing the court's redactions, on the parties in accordance with the local rules of practice for this court. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 4/19/17. (alh, )
June 14, 2017
PDF | More
l be automatically stayed in the event of an appeal of this ruling to Senior District Judge Frederick J. Scullin. (4) With the exception of the foregoing, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 51) is DENIED. (5) No costs or attorney's fees are awarded to any party in connection with plaintiff's motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 6/14/17. (alh, ) Modified on 11/22/2017 (alh, ).ORDER: *** Paragraph one is VACATED and superseded by the Court's 90 Decision and Order*** ORDERED that, (1) On or before July 1, 2017, defendants shall produce to plaintiff a list of all known investigations conducted of DOCCS employees at the Clinton Correctional Facility and in progress at any time between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015, related to the issue of smuggling and/or secreting of contraband, or prisoner abuse, at the facility. Such list shall include the dates on which the investigation began and ended, state the subject of the investigation, and identify any DOCCS employees whose actions were investigated. (2) On or before July 1, 2017, the defendants shall advise plaintiff of the dates over which the investigation into the actions of defendant Chad Stickney, referred to in paragraph twelve of the declaration of Sean Mousseau (Dkt. No. 53-1), was conducted. (3) The foregoing requirements, and specifically the July 1, 2017 compliance date, shal
June 14, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff's # 55 and # 56 motion for a Temporary Restraining Order/Order to Show Cause is GRANTED effective immediately insofar as Defendants' counsel is prohibited from proceeding with any arrangements she, any member of the New York State Attorney General's Office or the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision has made or may make in the future to have Plaintiff view the photographs of the officers who worked at C-block during the relevant shift at issue in this case, with or without video and stenographic recording of said viewing, without Plaintiff's counsel being present for said viewing. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 6/14/2017. (nmk)
November 22, 2017
PDF | More
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED as follows: (1) Defendants' motion for relief from the court's June order (Dkt. No. 74) is GRANTED. (2) Paragraph one of the court's June order (Dkt. No. 57) is hereby VACATED and superseded by this order. (3) On or before December 15, 2017, defendants shall produce to plaintiff a list of all known investigations conducted of DOCCS employees at the Clinton Correctional Facility that were in progress at any time between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015, related to the issues of either smuggling and/or secreting of contraband or prisoner abuse at the facility. (4) In generating the information directed in paragraph (3), defendants and the DOCCS shall accomplish the following steps: (a) Identify all OSI investigations covering the subject matters set forth above and opened between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015. (b) Identify all OSI investigations covering the subject matters set forth above and closed between January 1, 2015 and the date of the disclosure to plaintiff. (c) Of the investigations closed during that timeframe, identify those that were opened between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015. (5) After completing the foregoing steps, but also by or before December 15, 2017, defendants and the DOCCS shall review the underlying files associated with the pertinent investigations and provide to plaintiff the dates on which the investigations began and ended, the subject of the investigations, and the identity of any DOCCS employees whose actions were investigated. (6) Defendants and the DOCCS are not required to produce the information specified in paragraph (5) relating to any OSI investigation that remains open and pending. (7) As an alternative to the review of the pertinent investigations proposed in paragraph (5), defendants and the DOCCS may forward to the court for in camera review the summary sheets generated by the OSI electronic case filing system regarding the investigations. After reviewing the summary sheets provided for in camera inspection, the court will determine whether they provide sufficient information to satisfy plaintiff's discovery needs or whether further analysis of the underlying physical case files is required for all or some of the matters disclosed. (8) The information provided to plaintiff under the terms of this order is confidential and for attorney's eyes only. Plaintiff's counsel may not disclose this information to anyone outside of his law firm without prior consent of defendants' counsel or court approval. (9) No costs or attorney's fees are awarded to any party in connection with this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 11/22/17. (alh, )
January 9, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER: The court agrees with the assertion of the DOCCS and the defendants that having refused to disclose his knowledge concerning investigations at the facility, plaintiff should not now be provided with information concerning those investigations. Accordingly, having disclosed to plaintiff's counsel information concerning the number of investigations open during the relevant time period and concerning the subject matters identified, and in light of plaintiff's refusal to testify as to his knowledge concerning those investigations, I deem the DOCCS and the defendants to be in full compliance with my November 22, 2017 order (Dkt. No. 90), and will respectfully request that the Clerk of the Court return the materials submitted for in camera review to Joshua Pepper, Esq., Associate Counsel, NYS DOCCS. Attorney Pepper is directed to maintain the documents submitted for in camera inspection until the final disposition of this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 1/9/18. (In camera submissions returned as directed)(alh, )
January 29, 2018
PDF | More
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that; (1) Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 81) is GRANTED, limited to the request for the imposition of sanctions against defendants Racette and Kirkpatrick based upon the difficulty in scheduling their depositions. (2) Plaintiff is hereby awarded the sum of $628.65 each against defendants Racette and Kirkpatrick, as sanctions, to be paid within thirty days of the date of this order. (3) Except to the extent of the foregoing, plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 81) is DENIED. (4) The clerk is respectfully directed to forward to the attorneys in this action the New York State Bar Association publication entitled "Civility in Litigation: A Voluntary Commitment." In the future, the attorneys for the parties are expected to abide by the rules set forth in that pamphlet, and to treat each other with courtesy, dignity, and professionalism. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 1/29/18. (NYSBA publication emailed to all attorneys of record) (alh, )