Edwards v. Westchester County

Background

Pro se plaintiff Clint Edwards filed a series of letter motions seeking discovery from Defendant C.O. Arocho. Edwards alleged that on May 25, 2018, while he was housed in the Old Jail’s 2G housing block at the Westchester County Department of Corrections, Arocho ordered a non-party inmate to attack him after telling the inmate that Edwards was incarcerated for molesting children. Edwards alleged that the inmate struck him several times and that he later reported the assault and his safety concerns to Sergeant West.

The requests addressed three categories of materials: recordings of inmate calls made from the 2G block between 3:00 p.m. and 7:08 p.m. on the date of the alleged assault that mentioned Edwards; records showing the phone numbers dialed during those calls; and surveillance footage from locations in and directly outside the 2G block between 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Some other discovery requests had already been resolved, including requests for footage of the assault, footage of Edwards making calls, dialed phone numbers, and disciplinary records.

The opinion states that, construing the amended complaint liberally, Edwards raised a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court explained that such a claim requires a connection between the defendant’s actions and the injury, as well as deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s health or safety.

Discovery Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery initially must show relevance; the opposing party then must explain specifically why discovery should be denied. The court also noted that it had broad discretion over discovery and that Edwards’s filings, as a pro se litigant’s submissions, had to be read liberally while still complying with procedural and substantive rules.

Telephone Recordings and Dialed Numbers

The court reviewed two responsive telephone recordings privately. It found them relevant because they directly supported Edwards’s allegations. The recordings reflected calls made less than one hour before the alleged assault, included discussion of the charges listed for Edwards on the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision website, and included a conversation shortly before the alleged assault in which an inmate referred to information provided by an unnamed correctional officer and said he would “snuff” Edwards.

The court rejected Arocho’s hearsay objection as premature because discovery is broader than evidence admissible at trial. It also concluded that privacy concerns could be addressed through redactions. The court therefore granted Edwards’s motion to compel production of the two recordings, with redaction of the recipient’s name, phone number, and other personal identifying information. The court denied Arocho’s request to redact the name of the inmate who made the calls, if that name was known or audible, because the recordings suggested that the inmate participated in the alleged assault and might have relevant information. Arocho was directed to provide that inmate’s name to Edwards if known.

The court denied Edwards’s request for the phone number or numbers dialed during the calls because those numbers were personal identifying information belonging to the call recipient. Arocho was directed to preserve the recordings for trial.

Surveillance Footage

The court granted Edwards’s request for a limited portion of the surveillance footage before the alleged assault. It found that footage could be relevant to whether Arocho interacted with Edwards, Sergeant West, other inmates, or the inmate who made the two relevant calls. Such footage could potentially support Edwards’s allegations about Arocho’s intent and the connection between Arocho’s conduct and the alleged injury.

The court rejected Arocho’s argument that the footage was categorically nonresponsive. It also concluded that security concerns did not require denying all discovery because restrictions could protect the jail’s surveillance information. The court directed production of footage from each camera in and directly outside the 2G housing block between 3:00 p.m. and 7:08 p.m. on May 25, 2018, to the extent it showed: interactions involving Edwards, Arocho, and Sergeant West; interactions between Arocho and other inmates; or interactions involving the inmate who made the two relevant calls and people nearby while he made those calls.

The court denied Edwards’s request for footage of his post-assault complaint to Sergeant West. It found that the conversation did not bear on whether Arocho acted with deliberate indifference or otherwise establish Arocho’s liability, and that Edwards already had access to evidence concerning the complaint. The court also denied Edwards’s request for footage from every camera and every camera angle merely to confirm that the correct cameras had been used, because that request was not adequately shown to be relevant and posed a greater security risk.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part Edwards’s motions to compel. Arocho was ordered to arrange for Edwards to listen to redacted versions of the recordings and view the camera footage at Sing Sing Correctional Facility by April 5, 2021. Arocho also had to provide redacted transcripts of the recordings, provide the name of the inmate who made the calls if known, and preserve all copies of the records for trial. Public disclosure of the camera footage and use of it for purposes unrelated to the litigation were prohibited. The opinion was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy.