Oliver v. New York State Police

Filing 244

DECISION AND ORDER denying Pltf's 209 Motion for Sanctions against Defts. No costs or atty's fees are assessed in connection with the motion. The Court's stay of the deadline to file dispositive motions [Dkt. No. 212] is hereby lifted, and any such motion shall be filed by 5/17/19. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 4/30/19. (Copy served via regular mail)(sfp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JEAN OLIVER,
Plaintiff,
-v-

Civ. No. 1:15-CV-0444
(BKS/DJS)

NEW YORK STATE POLICE, et al.,
Defendants.
D

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

JEAN OLIVER
Plaintiff, Pro Se
2 South Shore Drive
Elma, NY 14059
JOSHUA D. STEELE, ESQ.

GLEASON DUNN WALSH & O’SHEA
Attorney for Defendant McKee
40 Beaver Street
Albany, NY 12207

J

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC
Attorney for State Police Defendants
99 Garnsey Road
Pittsford, NY 14534

LISA F. JOSLIN, ESQ.

S

DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff wrote to the District Court requesting a discovery
hearing and sanctions against Defendants and their counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37.

Dkt. No. 209. In dispute were, among other things, two state police personnel investigative
reports that Plaintiff claimed were falsified, forged, and “sanitized.” Dkt. Nos. 209 & 216.
The District Court directed this Court to resolve this discovery matter, and a discovery
hearing was ordered and scheduled. Dkt. No. 219.
II. THE HEARING1
The requested Rule 37 Discovery Hearing was held on April 23, 2019. During the
D

course of the day-long Hearing, Plaintiff introduced various records which were admitted
into evidence by the Court. Those Exhibits are as follows:

J

Exhibit 17.2 Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding PK,3 dated
January 17, 2014, referencing 39 attachments, 42 paragraphs plus a
conclusion, and 38 pages in length, including the cover pages. (Bates
Stamped).
Exhibit 18. Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding PK, dated
January 17, 2014, referencing 39 attachments, 42 paragraphs plus a
conclusion, and 38 pages in length, including the cover pages. (Exhibit
1 to EEOC).
Exhibit 51. Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding PK, dated
January 17, 2014, referencing 33 attachments, 37 paragraphs in length
plus a conclusion, and 31 pages in length, including the cover pages.
(Marked as Exhibit 29 at the deposition of April 20, 2018).
Exhibit 52. Email from defense counsel to Plaintiff’s former counsel dated May 22,
2018, together with cover sheets of redacted Complaints of Personnel

S
1

Certain limitations were placed on the hearing. Of particular note, the Court ordered that any issues regarding
firearm records which Plaintiff also maintained were forged, were not part of the hearing and this issue would be deferred
pending completion of expert disclosure and discovery relative to Plaintiff’s handwriting expert. See Dkt. Nos. 228 &
233.
2

Many of the Exhibits that were entered at the hearing were ultimately not relevant to the issue before the
Court. Other Exhibits were pre-marked by Plaintiff, but never offered. This is the reason for the gap in the Exhibit
numbers.
3

Reference throughout this Decision to personnel complaint information involving non-parties is made by
reference to the individual’s initials.

-2-

Exhibit 54.
Exhibit 55.
Exhibit 56.
Exhibit 57.
Exhibit 58.
Exhibit 59.

D

Exhibit 60.

Exhibit 61.
Exhibit 62.
J

Exhibit 63.
Exhibit 64.
Exhibit 65.
S

Exhibit 67.
Exhibit 68.
Exhibit 69.
Exhibit 70.
Exhibit 71.
Exhibit 72.

Investigations.
Email from Joshua Steele to Jean Oliver dated September 13, 2018,
regarding selections of personnel files required to be disclosed pursuant
to the August 3, 2018 Court Order.
Selected cover sheets of Complaints of Personnel Investigations.
Complaint of Personnel Investigation cover sheet.
Complaint of Personnel Investigation cover sheet.
Attorney email regarding discovery responses.
Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding JP, dated
January 10, 2014, referencing 19 enclosures, 21 paragraphs plus a
conclusion, and 7 pages in length including the cover pages. (Marked
as Exhibit 28 at the Deposition of April 20, 2018).
Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding JP, dated
January 10, 2014, referencing 21 enclosures, 23 paragraphs plus a
conclusion, 7 pages in length including the cover pages. (EEOC
Exhibit 2).
Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding JP, dated
January 10, 2014, referencing 21 enclosures, 23 paragraphs plus a
conclusion, 7 pages in length. (Bates Stamped).
Complaint of Personnel cover sheet regarding Jean Oliver with
documents and attached Complaint Against Personnel Investigative
Report, referencing 21 attachments, 23 paragraphs plus a conclusion,
totaling 29 pages. (Bates Stamped).
Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding Jean
Oliver, referencing 21 enclosures, 23 paragraphs plus a conclusion,
totaling 22 pages. (EEOC Exhibit 9).
Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding Lt. McKee
and others dated May 28, 2014, referencing 15 enclosures, 18
paragraphs and a conclusion. (EEOC Exhibit 6).
NYSP Level I Investigation Form regarding Jean Oliver, dated October
21, 2014. (EEOC Exhibit 19).
Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Report regarding Lt. McKee
and others, dated May 18, 2014, referencing 15 enclosures, 18
paragraphs and a conclusion, totaling 25 pages. (Bates Stamped).
Defendants’ Privilege Log.
Jill Bertrand email dated January 10, 2015.
Jill Bertrand email dated June 2, 2015.
Letter to EEOC Investigator Kielt, dated November 7, 2014, containing
the State Police’s response to Plaintiff’s complaint of discrimination.
Complaint of Personnel Investigation regarding MP.
-3-

Exhibit 73.
Exhibit 74.
Exhibit 75.
Exhibit 76.
Exhibit 77.
Exhibit 78.

D

Exhibit 79.
Exhibit 80.
Exhibit 81.
Exhibit 82.
Exhibit 83.
Exhibit 84.
Exhibit 85.

Memorandum dated October 8, 2014, regarding incident review
involving Jean Oliver, with related items.
Special Order 2016, renaming the Office of Internal Affairs as the
Professional Standards Bureau.
Complaint of Personnel Investigation cover sheet regarding Jean
Oliver.
Complaint of Personnel Investigation cover sheet regarding TP.
Complaint of Personnel Investigation cover sheet regarding PK.
Complaint of Personnel Investigation cover sheet regarding Martin
McKee.
Letter of Censure dated January 7, 2015.
Memorandum dated May 14, 2013 regarding TP.
Memorandum dated November 21, 2013, regarding DB.
Memorandum dated May 15, 2014, regarding Jean Oliver.
Complaint of Personnel Investigation cover sheet regarding KP.
Email dated March 11, 2014 regarding PK report.doc.
Email dated March 12, 2014 from Francis Christiansen to June Bradley.

In addition to the submission of Exhibits, Plaintiff pro se also called various witnesses
J

to the stand to testify.
Plaintiff first called Lois Goland, who was Deputy Counsel to the New York State
Police and a practicing attorney at the time Plaintiff made her discrimination complaint with
the EEOC. She testified that she was in charge of the process of preparing the State Police’s
response, which ultimately was set forth in the letter to EEOC Investigator Kielt. See Exhibit

S

71. Ms. Goland testified that in addition to that letter, there was an ongoing and rolling
disclosure process, and pursuant to that she forwarded to the EEOC various documents
regarding relevant investigations that the State Police had conducted. Included within that
disclosure were the Complaint Against Personnel Investigative Reports regarding JP, PK, and
Plaintiff Jean Oliver. Attorney Goland testified that those reports provided to the EEOC by

-4-

her are accurately reflected in the Exhibits 18, 60, 63, and 65 that were provided to her at the
discovery hearing. She has no knowledge of any report or record being forged, falsified, or
sanitized. She noted that the reports that she provided to the EEOC were the most complete
available, and to her knowledge were the final versions. She obtained them directly from the
State Police’s Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”).
Next, Lt. Owens testified regarding his involvement in document creation or
D

production in the Jean Oliver case and related investigations. In particular, in 2013 and 2014
he investigated and prepared the PK Investigative Report dated January 17, 2014, identified
at the Hearing as Exhibit 51. He explained how he conducted the investigation and described
that there may have been preliminary reports, but his version was completed, finalized, and

J

submitted to his supervisors on January 17, 2014. His completed report is Exhibit 51, and
was shown to Plaintiff Oliver at her deposition as Exhibit 29. Lt. Owens further explained
that after he submitted his report, it is his understanding that his supervisors requested
additional investigation be conducted. However, at that time Lt. Owens was away at training
in Quantico, Virginia, and therefore that additional investigation was assigned to someone

S

else, in particular Captain John Aquilina. Lt. Owens noted that the additional attachments
and the additional paragraphs in the investigative report show conduct that occurred after
January 17, 2014. See Exhibit 17 at p. 2 and ¶¶ 38-42. Accordingly, it is Lt. Owens’
understanding that the version of the PK Investigative Report marked as Exhibit 17 and 18,
is the final version that was completed after the required additional investigation was

-5-

conducted by others. To his knowledge Exhibits 17 and 18 are a true and accurate copy of
that later report, just as Exhibit 51 is a true copy of his final report as of January 17, 2014.
Lt. Owens notes that the cover sheets on Exhibits 17 and 18 still contain his name and still
have the same date of the initial report, and he suspects that this simply was never updated
when the Report was supplemented. He surmises that the same process occurred in
connection with the JP Investigative Report, although he was not involved in that
D

investigation.
Finally, Jason Hughes was called to the stand to testify regarding his production of
discovery documentation during the course of the present federal action. He is Assistant
Counsel to the State Police and has held that position since April of 2015. Attorney Hughes

J

testified that he was not aware of any discovery document in the Oliver matter that had been
falsified, forged or sanitized. He explained that initially when the Oliver Complaint came
in, State Police Counsel’s Office gathered a significant amount of documentation and
provided it to defense counsel. However, as the case progressed, additional requests for
documentation were made and additional disclosures were necessary. His normal practice

S

would be to request that documentation from IAB. However, on other occasions he may
have obtained information from a different source, such as the EEO file.
In her questioning, Ms. Oliver noted that in many instances dates were contained on
the bottom of cover sheets for personnel complaints and that the dates did not correspond to
the date of the event, or even the date of the resolution of the personnel complaint. Ms.

-6-

Oliver asserted that this meant that the documents were recreated. Mr. Hughes explained that
he believed that when those documents were reprinted directly from the computer system,
the computer system may have generated a new date at the bottom which corresponds to the
most recent printing. In other words, the report auto-populated or automatically dated the
form at the time when it was generated from the computer file. He denied any knowledge
that the documents had been falsified or having any communications about discrepancies
D

between the documents.
III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
Plaintiff has requested sanctions under Rule 37 for what she claimed was the
production of falsified or altered documents by Defendants and their counsel. At the hearing,

J

Plaintiff clarified that the sanction that she was seeking was an order preventing the
Defendants from filing any motion for summary judgment, and that she wanted an immediate
trial. The Court concludes that the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Motion fall under the
general category of spoliation of evidence. “Spoliation is the destruction or significant
alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in

S

pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167
F.3d 776, 779 (2d Cir. 1999). Where a party’s misconduct violates a court order, Rule 37(b)
allows a court to impose on that party sanctions of varying degrees of severity. In the present
case, Plaintiff has not identified any court order that was violated, and thus Rule 37(b) is not
applicable. However, “[e]ven in the absence of a discovery order, a court may impose

-7-

sanctions on a party for misconduct in discovery under its inherent power to manage its own
affairs.” Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 106-07 (2d Cir.
2002); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d). However, a court may not impose sanctions under its
inherent power unless the party has “acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for
oppressive reasons.” Cretella v. Liriano, 370 Fed. Appx. 157, 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting
DLC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 163 F.3d 124, 136 (2d Cir. 1998)). Moreover,
D

pursuant to Rule 37(d) and 7.1(d) of the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York,
a motion for sanctions must include a certification that the movant has in good faith
conferred with the opposing party in an effort to obtain the answer or response without the
need for court action.

J

A party seeking sanctions based on the destruction or falsification of evidence must
establish: “(1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve
it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed ‘with a culpable state of
mind’; and (3) that the destroyed evidence was ‘relevant’ to the party’s claim or defense such
that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.”

S

Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d at 107 (quoting Byrnie v. Town
of Cromwell, 243 F.3d 93, 107-12 (2d Cir. 2001)). “The party seeking sanctions bears the
burden of establishing all elements of a claim for spoliation of evidence.” Treppel v. Biovail
Corp., 249 F.R.D. 111, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

-8-

IV. ANALYSIS
The Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to show that the discovery documents
produced in this case were forged, altered, or “sanitized” by the Defendants or their counsel,
or that she has been prejudiced in any manner. Despite the hyperbole in Plaintiff’s
correspondence to the Court which initiated this process, the evidence presented at the
hearing simply does not prove her contention. Certainly, none of the testimony from those
D

witnesses called at the hearing supported Plaintiff’s claim that documents had been forged,
re-created, or sanitized during the course of discovery. The Court found those witnesses to
be very credible.
It is clear from the hearing that Plaintiff’s arguments are based on two points: (1) that

J

the PK and JP Investigative Reports were modified or altered, and (2) that the cover pages
for the disciplinary sheets provided to Plaintiff during discovery are misdated and incorrect.
Plaintiff surmises that, based upon these discrepancies, it follows that the Defendants and/or
their counsel re-created all of these documents in order to prejudice her case.
Starting first with the PK and JP Investigative Reports, Plaintiff takes the position that

S

the longer versions of those Reports (Exhibits 17, 18, 60, & 61) were created first, and that
the shorter versions (Exhibits 51 & 59) were manufactured by the Defendants after the fact
to use at her deposition so as to eliminate information that was helpful to her or problematic
for them. The Court is not persuaded by this argument, as it is counter to the testimony of
the witnesses, contradicts the Exhibits themselves, and runs afoul of common sense. The

-9-

testimony of Lt. Owens was that the version that he prepared of the PK Report was the one
that is marked as Exhibit 51, (i.e. the shorter version) and shown to Plaintiff as Exhibit 29
during her April 20, 2018 deposition. Exhibit 51 is an accurate copy of his report.
Therefore, based upon the Court’s consideration of the testimony and its review of the
records, it is clear to the Court that there was never any alteration of documents - Exhibit 51
was Lt. Owens’ original Report of January 17, 2014, and Exhibits 17 and 18 are copies of
D

the final PK Investigative Report (the longer version) generated after additional investigation
was conducted. This is evident from the very fact that the longer version contains two
additional paragraphs detailing the re-interview of Lt. McKee on February 11, 2014, and an
interview of Senior Investigator Phelps on February 18, 2014. See Exhibits 17 &18 at ¶¶ 38

J

& 39. This buttresses Lt. Owens’ explanation that his report was supplemented and merely
kept the same cover page and date, despite that the fact that the new information was added
after January 17, 2014. It is true that substantial confusion would have been avoided by
labeling the later report, reproduced as Exhibits 17 & 18, as an amended or supplemental
investigative report, but that point in no way establishes that the Defendants’ counsel or their

S

clients engaged in forgery or other acts of skulduggery, as Plaintiff continues to maintain.
With regard to the investigation regarding JP, that Investigative Report was prepared
by Captain Joseph Scioli, Jr., on January 10, 2014, and reproduced as Exhibit 59 at the
hearing. While Captain Scioli was not called to the hearing by Plaintiff, it is evident to the
Court that a similar supplementation occurred to his Investigative Report as well. Exhibit

-10-

59, the initial report, references 19 enclosures and contains 21 paragraphs as well as a
conclusion. Exhibits 60 and 62, on the other hand, are copies of an apparently supplemental
or revised Investigative Report regarding JP, which contain all the information from the first
report but details two additional investigative acts - a re-interview of Investigator Bonafede,
and a re-interview of Investigator Baldwin, both conducted by Capt. Aquilina on January 29,
2014 and January 30, 2014, respectively. Those re-interviews occurred after the date of the
D

initial report of January 10, 2014, so it once again appears that the cover page and the date
of the amended or supplemented report was never changed. The fact that an additional
Investigative Report was prepared after the submission of the first report, therefore, is simply
a result of further investigation by the State Police and nothing more.

J

It is also important to note that despite the fact that there appears to be a second
supplemental investigative report for both the PK and JP investigations, both reports contain
the same finding in each case - that at least some of the complaints are “founded.” Also
significant is that Plaintiff herself had copies of all of these reports during the discovery
process. Her counsel obtained the longer version of the PK and JP reports directly from the

S

EEOC, and an additional Bates Stamped copy was provided by Defendants during the course
of discovery. The fact that the shorter version was used at her deposition does not alone
evidence impropriety.
The second issue Plaintiff relied upon relates to the complaint cover sheets that were
produced during discovery. Generally, those “Complaint of Personnel Investigation” cover

-11-

sheets have an “incident date” and “report due” date box at the top of the cover sheet, and
also have a separate date stamp on the bottom left. Plaintiff contends that this discrepency
in dates indicates that the documents were recreated or falsified. Counsel for the Defendants
believe that, generally, such a date stamp may be automatically populated at the time the
report is printed out of the computer system. For example, Exhibit 52 is an email from
defense counsel Steele to Plaintiff’s then-counsel, David DeChellis, dated May 22, 2018.
D

Attached to Exhibit 52 are redacted copies of such Complaint of Personnel Investigation
cover sheets. It appears to the Court, based upon the transmitting email, that what was
produced by Defense Counsel was the result of a computer search by the State Police for
disciplinary reports related to founded claims for “Disobeying Directive/Order/Instruction”

J

or for “Neglect of Duty” for Troop A personnel. Each of the Complaint of Personnel
Investigation cover sheets has a date on the bottom of May 16, 2018, even though the
incident dates and the report due dates for the cover sheets range anywhere from 2010 to
2015. See Exhibit 52. This supports Defendants’ assertions regarding the auto-dating on the
bottom left of the form.

S

Similarly, all the Complaint of Personnel Investigation cover sheets contained in
Exhibit 55 are marked at the bottom left with the date of August 24, 2018, even though the
complaints themselves cover a wide range of dates from years prior to 2018. The date of
August 24, 2018, is therefore more likely reflective of the time of their printing or production
from the file, rather than the time of their creation. In another example, the cover sheet for

-12-

the Complaint of Personal Investigation # 20140436 was produced twice at the hearing by
Plaintiff - as part of Exhibit 52 and again as part of Exhibit 55. This identical cover sheet is
dated August 24, 2018 at the bottom of one copy, and May 16, 2018 on the other. Id. Thus
the Court concludes that the best evidence indicates that the date issue is caused by a
computer function, and not by any misconduct of the Defendants or counsel.
This is not to say that there were not some cover sheets produced at the hearing that
D

had date time stamps that were closer in time to the actual date of the Complaint of Personnel
Investigation, rather than its production. For example, Exhibits 72, 75, 76, and 77 have dates
on the bottom that date as far back to 2009. It may be that a Complaint of Personnel
Investigation cover sheet was printed out at that time, placed in a personnel file or other file,

J

and then simply photocopied. This would explain the fact that the date did not change. None
of that, however, speaks to any type of intentional misconduct by the Defendants or their
counsel, which Plaintiff is asserting in this Motion. While Plaintiff clearly disputed this
explanation during the hearing, she offered no direct evidence whatsoever supporting her
assertion that Defendants engaged in a large scale re-creation of State Police records.

S

Also absent from Plaintiff’s presentation is any indication regarding harm to her case
as a result of the changing dates of these cover sheets. As explained at length in the previous
Court Orders, the Court has reviewed personnel complaints regarding other State Troopers,
and has directed the production of hundreds of pages of relevant information concerning
those complaints, many times including the summary of the investigation that was conducted

-13-

and the discipline that was imposed. When asked at the hearing if Plaintiff had any evidence
that the Defendants had not turned over the documents which the Court had directed that they
turn over, Plaintiff simply responded that she did not know. Plaintiff has therefore failed to
meet her burden of proof.4
Having concluded that, based upon the record produced at the hearing, there has been
no showing of intentional falsification of evidence, forgery, or the sanitization of documents
D

as Plaintiff claimed, I must then decide whether to impose monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff
for bringing this discovery Motion. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B), where a discovery motion
is denied the Court must “require the movant . . . to pay the party or deponent who opposed
the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney’s

J

fees. But the court must not order this payment if the motion was substantially justified or
other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
In the present case there are many factors which counsel toward the imposition of
sanctions against Plaintiff Oliver in addition to the lack of proof outlined above. Initially,
Plaintiff has an obligation under both the Local Rules and the Federal Rules to attempt to

S

resolve any issues involving discovery by speaking with the other side and exercising good
faith and due diligence. There is no evidence that Plaintiff did that in this case, despite the
fact that she knew about the differences in the reports for a substantial period of time prior

4
The Court has considered and rejected the other arguments advanced by Plaintiff at the hearing. Whatever
perceived discrepancies might be pointed to in a few of the thousand of pages of discovery provided in this case does
not satisfy Plaintiff’s burden.

-14-

to the discovery cut off. She never asked for an informal conference with the Court
regarding these concerns. Had she requested an explanation regarding the two versions of
the PK and JP Investigative Reports from defense counsel, the Court is confident that such
an explanation would have been provided that would have obviated the need for this Motion.
Rather than doing that, Plaintiff filed the present Motion which necessitated a full day
hearing.
D

It is also concerning to the Court that while Plaintiff deposed non-party Lt. Owens
over a period of two days, she never asked him any questions concerning the supplementation
of his report, or in particular, how it came to be that the two additional interviews were
conducted after January 17, 2014 and then added to his report. He certainly had that

J

information, as his April 23, 2019 hearing testimony demonstrates. At its own request, the
Court was provided a copy of the Owens deposition transcript prior to the discovery hearing,
and the Court was frankly dismayed about the types of questions that were asked of that
witness by Plaintiff, with the vast majority being highly objectionable. Indeed, the Court
admires the restraint of defense counsel in this regard, as they would have been justified in

S

calling the Court for intervention at almost every stage of that deposition. Plaintiff simply
never asked the direct type of question that could have easily resolved the issues presented
at this Hearing, and instead was focused on accusing the witness of committing perjury.
In addition, this pro se Plaintiff has a history with this Court of making unsupported
allegations against the Defendants and their counsel. In particular, she accused the State

-15-

Police Counsel’s Office of misconduct in connection with her disciplinary proceeding by
asserting that they supplied the hearing officers with the conclusions of the investigation
before the hearing had even been held. Dkt. No. 156. An in camera review of the
correspondence at issue, an attachment to an email dated June 2, 2015 from Jill Bertrand to
Scott Wilcox, disclosed that the attachment contained merely a form for their use which had
nothing to do with the facts of Plaintiff’s discipline; in fact the form had been generated years
D

prior to that hearing. Dkt. No. 162. Undeterred by the prior baseless allegations, Plaintiff
has made the present unsupported claim of forgery.
Having considered the matter at length, however, the Court will not impose sanctions
at this time. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and has previously expressed financial difficulties

J

related to the litigation of this matter. Moreover, the Court’s limitation regarding the scope
of the hearing means that the merits of Plaintiff’s claims regarding alleged forgery of
firearms records have not yet been addressed. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that
these factors would make an award of costs at this time unjust. The Court would note,
however, that its patience with Plaintiff’s conduct in this case is running thin, and she is

S

specifically warned with regard to engaging in similar conduct in the future, either in this
case, or in the related case which she has pending before this Court, Oliver v. New York State
Police, et. al, 19-CV-233. Such conduct will likely result in significant sanctions.
V. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby

-16-

ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions against Defendants for alleged
spoliation or falsification of evidence (Dkt. No. 209) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that no costs or attorney’s fees are assessed in connection with the
Motion; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Court’s stay of the deadline to file dispositive motions (Dkt. No.
212) is hereby lifted, and any such motion shall be filed by May 17, 2019; and it is further
D

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon
the parties.
SO ORDERED.
Date: April 30, 2019
Albany, New York
J
S

-17-