Atkinson v. Trail

Law Offices of Adam J. Roth

112 Madison Avenue, 6" Floor (212) 922 — 3741 New York, New York 10016 (212) 253 — 4157 www.loajr.com [email protected] December 14, 2021 Judge Philip Halpern

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street, Room 1950

New York, New York 10007

Re: — Atkinson v. Trail et. ano.

7:20-cv-6101

Judge Halpern:

Please accept this correspondence as the parties joint request for this Court to “So Order” subpoenas for the following

1. New York State Office of Special Investigations attached as Exhibit 1.

2. Teconic Correctional Facility New York State Prison Rape Elimination Compliance attached as Exhibit 2.

3. Westchester County District Attorneys Office attached as Exhibit 3. .The reason for this request is that plaintiff gave statements to regarding both defendants to OSI, PREA and the Westchester County District Attorneys’ Office relative to the claims in the instant case. The Westchester County District Attorneys’ Office refused to provide any of its file Motion denied. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, the Clerk of Court even in response to the plaintiff’s sending Defdor counsel may issue and sign the subpoenas. attached as Exhibits 4 and 5. Both plaintiff and! he Clerk of Court is requested to mail a copy of this Order to pro se defendant Trail. these subpoenas because the documentation co SO ORDERED. exculpatory in nature. (6 / NY 4 Nf

Philip. Halper

It is well established that mutua]|United States District Judge we, . Dated: White Plains, New York a , proper litigation. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 US December 16, 2021 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 case (1) the requested documents will be dispositive of the issues at stake (2) the documents are critical to the case (3) there is substantial damages and (4) the State has ample resources. Therefore, the parties jointly request this Court “So Order” the attached subpoenas.

Respectfully submitted, /s/

Adam J. Roth