McDonough v. Smith, III et al
Filing
207
ORDER: Pursuant to this Court's March 25, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 206, the New York State Police was directed to supply the Court with both redacted and unredacted documents responsive to a subpoena issued by Defendant Smith on December 10, 2020 fo r an in camera review. Counsel for the New York State police has complied with that directive and provided the relevant documents to the Court. After review, the Court concludes that only the following additional unredacted documents should be prov ided to defense counsel pursuant to the subpoena: 1. The New York State Police Level I Investigative Form, dated September 9, 2012 (5 pages). 2. The To/From Memorandum dated November 1, 2011 (2pages). 3. The Interview Transcript of Senior Investig ator Christopher O'Brien dated December 8, 2011 (12 pages). 4. The Typed Statement of Alexander McDonald dated February 27, 2012 (8 pages, unsigned). The Court concludes that there is information contained in these documents that is proportion ally relevant to the needs of this case, and directly relates to issues that were the subject of a lengthy deposition of former Investigator O'Brien. In connection with the in camera submission, counsel for the New York State Police requested p ermission to submit further objections in the event that the Court were to order the release of additional documents. Since the Court is proposing to do so, the Court will grant the New York State Police counsel's office until June 11, 2021 to submit any additional arguments.IT IS SO ORDERED.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 6/2/2021. (Copy served via regular mail upon counsel for the New York State Police)(khr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EDWARD G. MCDONOUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
YOUEL C. SMITH, III,
1:15-CV-1505
(MAD/DJS)
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
PREMO LAW FIRM, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
20 Corporate Woods Boulevard
Albany, NY 12211
BRIAN D. PREMO, ESQ.
NAPIERSKI, VANDENBURGH,
NAPIERSKI & O’CONNOR, LLP
Attorney for Defendant
296 Washington Avenue Extension
Albany, NY 12203
THOMAS J. O’CONNOR, ESQ.
NEW YORK STATE POLICE
COUNSEL’S OFFICE
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12226
AMANDA NISSEN, ESQ.
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Pursuant to this Court’s March 25, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 206, the New York State
Police was directed to supply the Court with both redacted and unredacted documents
responsive to a subpoena issued by Defendant Smith on December 10, 2020, for an in
camera review. Counsel for the New York State Police has complied with that directive
and provided the relevant documents to the Court. After review, the Court concludes
that only the following additional unredacted documents should be provided to defense
counsel pursuant to the subpoena:
1. The New York State Police Level I Investigative Form, dated September 9,
2012 (5 pages).
2. The To/From Memorandum dated November 1, 2011 (2 pages).
3. The Interview Transcript of Senior Investigator Christopher O’Brien dated
December 8, 2011 (12 pages).
4. The Typed Statement of Alexander McDonald dated February 27, 2012 (8
pages, unsigned).
The Court concludes that there is information contained in these documents that
is proportionally relevant to the needs of this case, and directly relates to issues that were
the subject of a lengthy deposition of former Investigator O’Brien. In connection with
the in camera submission, counsel for the New York State Police requested permission
to submit further objections in the event that the Court were to order the release of
additional documents. Since the Court is proposing to do so, the Court will grant the
New York State Police counsel’s office until June 11th, 2021 to submit any additional
arguments.
The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to serve a copy of this Order upon the
2
State Police Counsel’s Office.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2021
Albany, New York
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?