Marhone v. Cassel
- Andrew Krause
- 7:16-cv-04733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Marhone v. Cassel, Judge Krause denied Conrad Marhone’s motion to compel personnel records because they were not relevant to his remaining claim.
Conrad Marhone’s request for personnel and disciplinary records was denied. The order concerned the remaining § 1983 claim against Superintendent Joseph Smith and did not order production of the requested records.
What happened
In Marhone v. Cassel, Conrad Marhone, representing himself, asked the court to order production of personnel and disciplinary records involving corrections employees. The case had been narrowed to one claim against Superintendent Joseph Smith concerning light and noise conditions in a special housing unit at Shawangunk Correctional Facility.
The court said a previous review of Joseph Smith’s personnel file had found nothing relevant to Marhone’s claim. It also said the repeal of New York Civil Rights Law § 50-a did not justify revisiting that decision because the statute had not been the basis for withholding the records. Marhone also offered no basis for obtaining records of defendants who were no longer in the case.
Judge Andrew E. Krause denied Marhone’s motion to compel and directed the clerk to terminate the motion and mail Marhone a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Marhone v. Cassel · No. 7:16-cv-04733
- Andrew Krause
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
Conrad Marhone, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion to compel discovery of personnel records under a provision of New York Civil Rights Law § 50-a. His fifth request for production sought disciplinary records, personnel records, complaints, investigative records, and internal records concerning alleged misconduct by the remaining defendant and other corrections employees.
Earlier in the case, Judge Nelson S. Román had granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That left one claim: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Superintendent Joseph Smith violated Marhone’s Eighth Amendment rights through light and noise conditions in the special housing unit at Shawangunk Correctional Facility. Judge Román later denied Marhone’s motion for reconsideration, so only that claim against Joseph Smith remained.
Analysis
In 2019, Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith reviewed Joseph Smith’s personnel file privately. She determined that the file contained nothing relevant to Marhone’s claim and that no documents from it needed to be produced.
Judge Krause explained that New York law does not control the discoverability and confidentiality of personnel records in federal civil-rights actions. The court also noted that neither Joseph Smith nor Magistrate Judge Smith had relied on New York Civil Rights Law § 50-a as the basis for withholding the records. Therefore, the statute’s repeal did not provide a reason to reconsider the earlier discovery decision.
The court further stated that, if Marhone’s request sought records concerning defendants who were no longer parties to the case, Marhone had provided no basis for finding those records relevant to his narrow remaining claim against Joseph Smith. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.
Ruling
Judge Andrew E. Krause denied Marhone’s motion to compel. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail a copy of the order to Marhone.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.