Atkinson v. Trail

Law Offices of Adam J. Roth Madison Avenue, 6" Floor (212) 922 - 3741 New York, New York 10016 (212) 253 — 4157 www.loajr.com ajr @loajr.com Via ECF Honorable Philip M. Halpern August 3, 2021 United States District Court Southern District of New York Quarropas St. Re: Atkinson v. Trail, et al.

White Plains, New York 10601 Docket No.: 20-cv-06101 Dear Honorable Sir: Application GRANTED. The Court construes Plaintiff's letter- motion (Doc. 28) as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. . 37(a) to compel Defendant Trail to properly execute and have As you may know, my office repre),otarized a 160.50 release for his sealed criminal records in connection with Indictment No. DAQ0975-18, and grants Please accept this correspondence as plain{same. On its face, the request is within the scope of permissible discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). permission to make a motion pursuant to F Defendant Trail has failed oppose this application or set forth any argument against the requested disclosure. compelling Defendant Trail to sign a 160. Accordingly, Defendant Trail is directed to provide access to the subject sealed criminal records to Plaintiff by properly On July 13, 2021, my office contac executing and having notarized the release annexed to this application as Exhibit F (Doc. 28-6) and returning it to sealed criminal records pertaining to Indic{Plaintiff's counsel within seven days of the date of this Order. are records from the Westchester County q the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to pro se defendant Trail. said request and I informed him that my offs> ORDERED. hereto as Exhibits B and C are certificatid hw .

Philip M. Halpern Court, plaintiff will move for an order con{UN'ted States District Judge Dated: White Plains, New York access to sealed records. August 23, 2021 Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37(a)(1), “a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. “In federal actions, discovery should be broad, and all relevant materials which are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence should be discoverable.” Fountain v. City of NY, 2004 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 7539, *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2004).

It is well established that mutual knowledge of all relevant facts is essential to proper litigation. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 US 495, 507 (1947). Parties may seek liberal discovery on any matter reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Fed. R.Civ.P.26(b)(1). The Court may consider several factors in determining whether discovery on an issue is appropriate including (1) importance of the issues at stake; (2) the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving those issues; (3) the amount in controversy; and (4) the parties resources. The party resisting discovery bears the burden of clarifying and explaining why its objections are proper.

Bass v. Grottoli, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11531, 7-8 (S.D.N.Y 1996 J. Reice-Buchwald) In the instant matter, defendant Trail’s sealed records pertaining to his prosecution and guilty plea to the underlying sexual assault and rape claims are highly relevant to plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, (1) the discovery is central to the case; (2) the discovery goes directly to several issues in the case; (3) the amount in controversy is significant, and (4) although Mr. Trail has extremely limited means, all that is required is that he sign a document and get it notarized.

Therefore, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to this information.

Annexed hereto as Exhibit D is a press release from the Westchester District Attorney’s Office detailing his plea. Plaintiff requires access to these criminal records to continue pursuing her civil claim. Mr. Trail has refused to provide a signed 160.50 and should be compelled to do so. In good faith, this office sent Mr. Trail a letter annexed hereto as EXHIBIT E along with a 160.50 annexed as EXHIBIT F and advised that this office would seek this court’s permission to make a motion to compel his signature. Mr. Trail did not provide his signature.

Therefore, plaintiff seeks a pre-motion conference with this Honorable Court, or in the interest of judicial economy, for an Order pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37(a)(1) compelling defendant Trail to provide access to these sealed records. We thank the Court for its time and consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

/s/ Adam J. Roth CC: Garth Trail 1714 Crotona Park East, Apt. 1A Bronx, New York 10460