Walker v. Saddler et al
Filing
42
OPINION: Defendants' motion for leave to file documents under seal is granted (d/e 38 ) to the extent Defendants seek an in camera review. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/2/2013. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 02 January, 2013 03:07:09 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
RONALD WALKER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY J. PHILLIPS,
Defendants.
11-CV-3056
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville Treatment
and Detention Center, pursues claims regarding the application of the
“black box” restraints to him. (Judge Baker’s 6/22/11 merit review
order.) Plaintiff claims that he suffered severe pain, swelling, and
numbness from wearing the black box restraint. The claim proceeds
against Defendants Phillips, McAdory, and Williams. Id.
On September 27, 2012, the Court directed Defendants to produce
to Plaintiff “all documents addressing the application of black box
1
restraints to residents, including directives, training materials, and
documents outlining the potential harm of incorrect application, if any.”
Defendants produced some relevant documents to Plaintiff and filed a
motion for leave to file certain directives under seal, asserting security
concerns.
The Court has reviewed the directives submitted under seal.
Defendants do not explain the security concerns presented by disclosing
the directives that deal with the application of restraints. Conclusory
assertions of security concerns are insufficient. Some of these same
directives have already been disclosed in a recent trial before this Court,
Davis v. Phillips, 09-CV-3336 (C.D. Ill., Judge Myerscough).
The Court will compel production of the directives relating to the
use and application of restraints. The other directives will remain under
seal because they are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims and, at least for some
of the directives, present obvious security concerns if made public.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
2
1) Defendants’ motion for leave to file documents under seal is
granted (d/e 38) to the extent Defendants seek an in camera review.
2) Pursuant to the Court’s in camera review, the Court concludes
that the following documents filed under seal will be produced to
Plaintiff. By January 14, 2013, Defendants are directed to provide to
Plaintiff the following security and control directives for the DHS
Treatment and Detention Facility: a) the policy and definitions sections;
b) the procedures listed under the sections titled administrative review,
use of transportation security devices, and application of transport
security devices; and, c) the staff training directives in section IX.
3) Plaintiff may supplement his response to the pending summary
judgment motion by February 8, 2013, to address how the compelled
information affects his claim.
ENTERED: 1/2/2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?