McPhee v. Sgt. N. Laino

Nature of the order

This was a status-conference order addressing discovery, evidence, a request for appointed counsel, a possible amended complaint, and settlement proceedings. It did not decide the underlying claims.

Discovery and evidence

The court ordered defense counsel to file a letter by October 3, 2025, addressing three questions about the Office of Special Investigations file: whether the file contains 240 pages or whether the 221 pages already produced are the entire file; what authority the Office of Special Investigations has to obtain an incarcerated individual’s medical records during an investigation; and whether defense counsel ever received authorizations to obtain McPhee’s medical records in document discovery. Defense counsel was also ordered to reproduce McPhee’s audio-recorded Office of Special Investigations interview by that date.

The court denied without prejudice McPhee’s motion to strike the declaration of Captain Shawn Murphy. The court explained that the declaration related to spoliation, an evidence issue to be resolved at trial.

Request for a volunteer lawyer

Applying the factors identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hodge v. Police Officers, the court denied without prejudice McPhee’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer.

Possible amendment and settlement

The court postponed any decision on McPhee’s request to file a motion seeking permission to amend his complaint until after the settlement conference. It reminded McPhee that he must be prepared to discuss that issue at the conference if the case is not resolved.

Judge Andrew E. Krause adjourned the matter to October 28, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. for a video settlement conference. Each party was ordered to submit a confidential, separate letter of no more than five pages by October 24, describing settlement negotiations, the issues in the case, the party’s settlement valuation and reasons for it, and other helpful facts. McPhee was directed to mail his letter by October 17 so that it would arrive by October 24. Defense counsel was ordered to make at least one concrete settlement offer that McPhee received by October 21.

The order stated that defendants, identified as Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employees, did not have to attend personally. Defense counsel instead had to arrange for an appropriate Department of Corrections and Community Supervision representative to attend or be available by telephone, along with supervisor-level attorneys from the New York State Attorney General’s Office who could approve a settlement. Defense counsel also had to arrange for McPhee to be available by video from the correctional facility. The Clerk was directed to mail McPhee a copy of the order.