DECISION and ORDER In this §1983 action, Plaintiff alleges Defendants maliciously prosecuted him for being an accessory to a robbery that he was not involved in thereby constituting a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment and a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of Defendants’ fabrication of evidence and withholding of exculpatory evidence, Plaintiff alleges he was convicted of robbery and receiving stolen property. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on June 28, 2004, Plaintiff and three other persons were passengers in a vehicle that stopped near a business on Bailey Avenue in the City of Buffalo at which time one of the passengers, Kurtel Walker, then 15 years old, purported to rob an employee of the business of $3,488 as part of a scheme under which Walker would be repaid by the employee for a drug related debt. Upon returning to the car, Waker did not inform the other passengers, including Plaintiff, of the fake robbery and Plaintiff had no prior knowledge about the scheme. Shortly thereafter the car was stopped by Defendant Brown, a Town of Amherst police officer, at Plaintiff’s apartment in the Town of Amherst.1 Each person was transported in a police car to the Bailey Avenue business where the victim was unable to identify the robber. Walker claims he stashed the stolen funds in the police car which brought him back to the scene. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants Dates and Lauber coerced Walker into giving a statement implicating Plaintiff as having had prior knowledge of Walker’s scheme and having planned the robbery with Walker a “few hours beforehand.” (Dkt. 56 at 43). After giving this statement to Defendants Dates and Lauber, Walker attempted to recant the statement the next day but Defendants refused to accept Walker’s attempted recantation of Plaintiff’s involvement in the robbery and suppressed such fact from the prosecutor. Plaintiff also alleges Brown fabricated inculpatory statements attributed to Plaintiff, that Brown initiated Plaintiff’s prosecution, and that Defendants Lauber and Dates also initiated and continued the Plaintiff’s prosecution by falsely testifying before the Grand Jury concerning the events leading up to Plaintiff’s arrest. Plaintiff was subsequently convicted of robbery and possession of stolen property on June 30, 2005 and sentenced to 20 years on the robbery count and two and one-third years to seven years on the possession of stolen property count. Thereafter, on January 17, 2017, a state court vacated Plaintiff’s robbery conviction based on newly discovered evidence; however, the court declined to vacate Plaintiff’s possession of stolen property conviction. Walker was granted youthful offender status in connection with the charges. In connection with pretrial discovery, Plaintiff, on May 16, 2023, served the Erie County District Attorney (“ECDA”) with a subpoena duces tecum pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1) requesting copies of (1) the entire prosecution files for Plaintiff and Walker, (2) grand jury transcripts of testimony before the Grand Jury in Plaintiff’s case, (3) all memoranda of witness interviews in connection with Plaintiff’s case, (4) the prosecution file concerning Walker’s case including all investigative documents, photographic evidence, videotape witness interviews and interrogations, chain of custody documents, 911 calls and radio communications by police officers involved in Plaintiff’s investigation, and copies of e-mails of any employees of the Erie County District Attorney’s office relating to Plaintiff. Plaintiff represents that on December 19, 2019, Plaintiff provided to his attorney an executed Designation of Agent For Access To Sealed Records Pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L §160.50[1][d] (“Designation of Agent”) and on June 20, 2020 Walker also provided an executed Designation of Agent to Plaintiff’s attorney. According to Plaintiff, in response to Plaintiff’s subpoena, the ECDA provided only redacted documents relating to the charges against Plaintiff but failed to provide any grand jury transcripts or any responsive documents pertaining to Walker’s prosecution. In opposition, the ECDA contends that Plaintiff’s subpoena cannot be enforced in its entirety as it requests disclosure of secret grant jury testimony, confidential youthful offender records regarding the prosecution of Walker, a minor at the time of the robbery, and sealed records pursuant to N.Y.Crim.Proc. Law §160.50 (“§160.50″) of two persons who were no-billed by the grand jury. (Dkt. 56 at 2) As regards the requested grand jury transcripts, the ECDA argues that Plaintiff has failed to articulate a particularized need for such testimony. (Dkt. 56 at 5-6). Accordingly, the ECDA requests Plaintiff’s subpoena should be quashed. (Dkt. 56 at 1). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary. The court turns to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion. (1) Prosecutor’s Files. Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena requests the ECDA produce the entire prosecutor’s files for both Plaintiff and Walker. See (Dkt. 54-4)
