Treadwell v. Prince George's County et al

Filing 70

REDACTED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 47 Motion to Bifurcate; GRANTING IN PART 48 Motion for Protective Order; GRANTING 49 Motion to Seal ECF Nos. 48 & 48-1; GRANTING 55 Motion to Seal Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order; GRANTING 62 Motion to Seal ECF No. 60 (Reply); GRANTING 65 Motion to Seal. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/12/2014. (rss, Deputy Clerk)

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

Document 6,60 ••••••

Filed 06/13/14

Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

OREADEA TREADWELL

v.

Civil Action No. DKC 13-0063

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM

Presently
employment

pending

OPINION

and

discrimination

AND ORDER

ready

case

for

are

two

resolution
motions.

in

this

Defendants

Prince George's County Health Department and Christopher Oladipo
move for a protective order prohibiting Plaintiff or Plaintiff's
counsel

from

(ECF No. 48).

disclosing

confidential

personnel

Second, Defendant Prince George's County moves to

bifurcate the claims in this case.

(ECF No. 47).

rules, no hearing

being deemed necessary.

For the

following

reasons, the motion

will

granted

be

information.

in part

and denied

The court now

Local Rule 105.6.

for a protective order

in part.

The motion

to

bifurcate will be denied.
I.

Background
Plaintiff

Developer.
language,

is

an

employee

of

the

County

as

a

Community

She alleges that she has been subject to abusive
unwelcome

sexual

advances,

Oladipo, an employee of the County.

and

sexual

assaults

by

She alleges that the County

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

knew

about

remedial

Oladipo's

of Title

and

VII,

of

to 42 U.S.C.

On February
stipulated
prohibi ts
persons

retaliation

Fourteenth

~ 1983.

failed

against

Amendment

disclosure

any

who are not the parties,

appropriate
for
in

Protection
pursuant

Complaint) .
the parties'

Confidentiality

the

following

witnesses,

sex

violation

Defendants,

approved

The
of

County

Amended

the undersigned

of

take

of the Equal

against

Order.

Page 2 of 16

claims

the

(ECF No. 28, Second

10, 2014,

to

brought

of a violation

Confidentiality
the

but

Plaintiff

and a claim

the

Filed 06/13/14

i

acti vi ties

actions.

discrimination

clause

Document 66

experts,

Order

documents

to

or counsel:

Any and all documents or items produced by
Defendants
which pertain to discipline
of
employees,
termination
of employees,
and
any other personnel
information
set forth
in any personnel
files concerning
former
or current
employees
of Prince
George's
County, Maryland.
Any criminal
in discovery.

investigatory

files

produced

The testimony
of any and all individuals
deposed
in
this
matter
regarding
the
contents of personnel files, including any
discipline
of employees,
termination
of
employees,
and/or other personnel
matters
regarding
former or current
employees
of
Prince George's County, Maryland.
Any
financial,
psychological
discovery.
(ECF No.
protective

42

'IT

2).

order

On

medical,
records

April

21,

counseling,
produced

2014,
Plaintiff

prohibiting

2

Defendants
and/or

or
in

moved

for

a

Plaintiff's

counsel

from

produced

by Defendants

deposition
No.

of

dis clos ing

Defendants

against

replied
II.

and
motion

discovered

former

during

the
(ECF

employees.

(ECF Nos.

51 and 54),

and

the

County
claims

this

moved to
against

motion

bifurcate

the

(ECF No.

Count

County.
57),

III

(ECF NO.

and the

County

63).

Analysis
Motion

for Protective

issue

an

order

set

protect

the
establish

forth

specific

statements

Baron

Corp.

Fin.

courts

discovery

problems.

62 (4th Cir.
Plaintiff

and
to

court

party

H

good

person

burden

undue

or

cause

under

particular

why a protective

broad

discretion
Labs.,

F.R.D.

annoyance,
including

in
Inc.

The burden

on

the

movant

rather

than

broad

202

[their]
v.

is

26(c);

order
200,

[to]

expense,

Rule
facts,

cause,

from

or discovery.H

240

Mylan

"for

or

Natanzon,

have

should

issue.

(D.Md. 2006).
resolution

Akzo,

of

2

F.3d

N.V.,

1993)
has

to

or

good

as

v.

"District

a

disclosure

to

conclusory

conference

permits

oppression,

. forbidding

must

the

to

embarrassment,

movant

Order

26(c)

Fed.R.Civ.P

56,

the

opposed

(ECF No.

A.

the

2014,
from

Plaintiff

the

or

information

(ECF No. 60).

4,

Oladipo

47).

opposed

replied

On April

discovery

representatives

Page 3 of 16

personnel

confidential

during

County

Plaintiff

48).

Filed 06/13/14

Document 66•••••

Case 8:13.cv.00063.DKC

indicated

disclose

that

information
3

she
that

intends

to

she

learned

hold

a

during

press
the

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

course

of

states

that

chree

pieces

depositions
during
of

of
the

complaint

she

sexually

$1,000

for

aid

personnel

files

she

exchanged,

details

that

this

a

aware
as

of

Ms. Fajimolu-Onkedo's
ECF

extortion.

(See

to

No.

testimony

disclose

1 'lI'iI 43-45).
Mr.

who testified

Oladipo,

investigation

produced

by Defendants,

she

first

of

Defendants'

not

learned

that

of

any

represents

any

sexual

discovery
which

harassmenc
Plaintiff
a

conducted

contained

that

in

and
seeks

former

criminal,
Mr.

County

of

to
Mr.

role

during

Plaintiff's
Gheen's
4

investigation

information

about

personnel

file

chat

this

She

investigation.

Gheen's

an

Oladipo's

and Mr. Gheen testified

response
most

he

represents

was not

administrative,

contends

County.

complaint,

Raymond Gheen,

that

Plaintiff
chis

She

Second,

her

come from

before

of

pay

the

not

original

complaint

from

with

chat

-------.a...- ...-----

investigator,
of

her

he

that

did

by Ms.

testimony

investigation.

by

disclose

discrimination

demanded

allegation

to

testimony

including

information

this

evidenced

seeks

sexual

employment

criminal

or

became

and

•..
*••.....' ,. .

securing

in

contends

a

County,

her

she

Plaintiff

deposition

concerning

harassed

Plaintiff

thac

first,

the

Page 4 of 16

representatives.

conference,

information:

made against

Oladipo

Filed 06/13/14

County

press

Fajimolu-Okonede

Toyin

was

Document 66

admi ts

discovery

was an

as

interrogatories,

testimony

pertains

that
part
but

to

Ms.

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

Fajimolu-Okonede's
seeks

to

Document 6~8
•••

discrimination

disclose

Crankfield,

a

"

Page 5 of 16

complaint.

Finally,

cestimony

deposition

County

Filed 06/13/14

from

Plaintiff

Ms.

Angela

employee

~---------Plaintiff

represents

information

that

this

case,

sum,

Plaintiff

direct
this

by

Order

that
and,

contend

Protective

personnel

files

to

Mr.

Gheen's

disclosure

of

this

given

that

Order

information

covering

not

she

has

to any

file produced

in

investigation.

In

is

information
the County's

relate

covered

by

of response

to

lack

not

a responsibility

to make

public.

personnel

files

does

to any criminal

of wrongdoing,

information

the

testimony

in any personnel

it relate

argues

evidence

Defendants

this

was contained

nor does

the Protective

that

of Ms.

all

because

and/or

of this
all

of the

information

Fajimolu-Okonedo

investigations

of

information
information

taken

contains

directly

from the

and Mr. Oladipo,

personnel

testimony,

the

Protective

documents

and

testimony
5

is covered

matters.
Order

and the

In regard

prohibits

pertaining

to

the
any

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

personnel
current

Document 66~

information

set

Filed 06/13/14

forth

in

the

Page 6 of 16

personnel

files

of

and former employees, including anything pertaining to

discipline.

Defendants

further argue that because allegations

of bribery and extortion are criminal in nature and any related
investigation
matters
this

into

those

allegations

deals

with

which may have resulted in the discipline

information

is

covered

by

the

terms

of

personnel

of Oladipo,

the

Protective

Order.
This

is

an

unusual

situation.

Plaintiff

has

received

information in discovery that she wants to reveal publicly but
not

in the context of litigation.

that

what

may

remain

confidential

stage of the litigation
example,

information

public's

interest

of

v. Wash.

motion) .

(public has

a

order
party

For

substantive

Post,

rights.

See

Va.

386 F.3d 567, 578-79 (4 th

First Amendment

a

relied upon by a

right of access

to

submitted in conjunction with a dispositive

Furthermore,

protective
sealed;

Police

properly

find themselves in.

in examining the evidence

Dep't

materials

what

in the dispositive motions stage, given the

a party's

2004 )

on

will not necessarily be deserving of

in adjudicating

Cir.

depending

that is confidential during the discovery

court

State

differs

the parties

phase of the proceedings
similar protection

It is. important to emphasize

will
must

mere
not

reliance

guarantee

demonstrate
6

on

the

terms

that

a

record

that

alternatives

of

will

a
be

less

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

restrictive

than

Document 66

sealing

sealing or redacting

Filed 06/13/14

the

record

are

inadequate

See Cochran

overcome

records"); Butler

why

v. Volvo Grp. N. Am.,

931 F.Supp.2d 725, 729 (M.D.N.C. 2013)

agreement

and

a record furthers interests greater than

the public's right of access.
LLC,

Page 7 of 16

the

public's

v. DirectSAT

right

of

("parties cannot by
access

to

judicial

876 F.Supp.2d 560, 576

USA, LLC,

n.18 (D.Md. 2012) (party seeking to seal exhibits simply because
it

is covered

satisfy

Local

by

a

Rule

representations")

confidentiality
105.11's

cause.

have

The

not

of

insufficient

"specific

Fajimolu-Okonede' s deposition
met

Protective

contents of personnel
adequately

requirement

is

to

factual

.

In regard to Ms.
Defendants

order

that

Ms.

their

Order

files.

burden

covers

of

testimony,

demonstrating

testimony

good

concerning

the

Defendants have not demonstrated

Fajimolu-Okonede's

testimony

concerns

the

contents of any County employee's personnel file.

The evidence

here

of

does

not

suggest

Fajimolu-Okonede's
this litigation.

that

accusations

Plaintiff
for the

learned
first time

the

as part

Ms.
of

Quite the contrary, in her original complaint

she details 01adipo's alleged sexual harassment of Ms. FajimoluOnkendo and the complaint Ms. Fajimolu-Okendo filed.
also

recounted

extortion.

(ECF

Ms.
No.

Fajimo1u-Oknekdo's

allegation

Plaintiff

of Oladipo's

This complaint was not filed

1 'll'll 43-44).

under seal and no party has subsequently moved to file it under
7

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKCDocument66'-"

seal.

While

have

her

is

no

it

is

for

that

the

regard

do not

the

state

employee's

personnel

10-616

(i)

law

makes

the
an

willful

and

of

law.

the

involving
entitled

to

The parties
disclosure
the

Here,

alleged

acts

of

reasonably

agreed

otherwise
But

Plaintiff

states

of

a

she

original
that

8

This

State
is

is

of

a

Gov't

~

tied

to
The
the

record

for

in

is

a

violation
litigation

employee,

Plaintiff

would not

be otherwise.

order

information

never

itself;

government.

this

from

complaint

she

file

damages

to. a protective

learned

testimony

inspection

by the

Because

where

of

covered.

actual

a County

is

information

public

confidential

information

by Plaintiff's

held
for

10-626.

records

parties.

evidenced

~

the

that

covers

prohibits

to

liable

inspection

only

not

her

The terms

Md. Code Ann.

record

personnel

of

which

made

information
file.

is

any

Defendants

personnel

sources

given

individual

Id.

the

record.

personnel

knowing

the

of

not

dispute.

It

there

requested

has

governs

go so far.

law,

The protection

location:

present

could

private,

or

she

a personnel

from other

Maryland

its

in

contents

with

.

the

testimony

and

Page 8 of 16

Fajimolu-Okendo

promised

order

found

learned

consistent

was

to

Ms.

this

testimony

that

into

information

her

Order

Protective

inquiring

she

confidentiality

with

that

keeping

that

known in

consistent
the

in

indication

posi tion
argue

acknowledged

own interest

confidentiality

Filed06/13/14

to

-

limit

shared

another
is

requested,

the

between

source

not

was

-

as

protected.

and has

never

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

received

Ms.

question

posed

file.

marginal

testimony
stifling
The

the

the

concerns

sworn
as

of

the

to

the
prevent

the

conversation

Plaintiff's

is

are

not

the

great

victim,
disclosure

allegations

Plaintiff's
adding

a

are

complaint
alleged
enough

and

victim's
to

war",ant

speech.

conclusion

of

a

in

third-party

These

through

is

alleged

to

no

personnel

there

of

need

Defendants

that
a

unpersuasive.
sphere

her

by

testimony
to

Page 9 of 16

Consequently,

contents

made

public

the

the

file.

appreciates

is

cost

to

personnel

~llegations

testimony
in

Filed 06/13/14

undersigned

arguments

this

already

her

the

and

Defendants'

the

to

between

complaint

of

Fajimolu-Okendo's

While

difference

66'-"

Document

the

same

in

regard

to

Ms.

Crankfield's

_•...•_---_ .._-_ ..------.
----------------- ••...
testimony.

There
indication

that

personnel

file.

hypotheticals

this

by

the

covered

by

the

demonstrated

not

be

standards

why it

wise,
of

Protective
must

concerns

remain

one's

wisdom.
Order

right
This

and

confidential.
9

the

contents

revealing

publicly

While

might

governed

testimony

to

of

speak

no
any
and

rumors

testimony

Defendants

is

is

not

is

not

have

not

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

Mr.

Gheen's

Document 66

testimony

Filed 06/13/14

is

a

~

Page 10 of 16

•. -_.
_
matter,

different

however.

m

ill

~.m

_

•

~--.-._

•

~

The

Furthermore,
in the

there

public

Gheen's

distinction

covered

is no indication

sphere

testimony

as it was

that

by the parties'

B.

Motion

the

not

draws

this

not

information

part

apparent.
is already

of the complaint.

Plaintiff

Protective

is

seeks

to

Mr.

disclose

is

Order.'

to Bifurcate

Plaintiff

brings

retaliation

against

I and

II),

and

clause

of

the

Oladipo,

Plaintiff

r

the County

a claim

pursuant

of

claims

in violation

for a violation

Fourteenth

Amendment

to 42 U.S.C.

sex

~

1983

discrimination
of Title

of the
against
(Count

Equal
the
III).

VII

and
(Counts

Protection
County
The

and

County

, The parties
seek to keep under seal their filings.
As
some of the information
contained
is covered by the Protective
Order, it necessarily
follows that this information discussed in
the parties'
filings should remain protected and the motions to
seal will be granted.
This memorandum
opinion and order will be
filed
under
seal
temporarily
and
the
parties
will
propose
redactions within fourteen (14) days.
10

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

has moved

Document

to bifurcate

Filed 06/13/14

6[JlO •••••

the claims against

Page 11 of 16

Oladipo

from Count

III .
Under
prejudice,

Fed.R.Civ.P.

"[flor

42 (b) ,

convenience,

avoid

or to expedite and economize," the court may order

separate trials of any claims or issues.
discretion

to

in deciding whether

The court has broad

to bifurcate

claims

for trial,

and the exercise of that discretion will be set aside only if
clearly abused.

Dixon

v.

CSX Transp.,

990 F.2d 1440, 1443

Inc.,

(4th Cir. 1993)
In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that Oladipo violated her
clearly

established

discrimination

by

constitutional
sexually

right

harassing

to be

her

color of state law as a County employee.
Plaintiff's

because

established,
1983.

Oladipo

Plaintiff

Count

III

for

constitutional
is individually

free

while

from sex

acting

under

Plaintiff claims that
was

right

liable under

clearly

42 U.S.C. ~

also argues that the County is liable under

violating

Plaintiff's

constitutional

rights

by

allowing Oladipo's practices to become a custom or practice of
the County as evidenced by its long-held knowledge of Oladipo's
acts

accompanied

Oladipo,

and

by

failing

its

failure

to train

to

investigate

its employees

and

on EEO

punish

laws and

provide them adequate remedial measures.
The
prevent

County

argues

prejudice

to

that

bifurcation

Oladipo.

To
11

is

appropriate

demonstrate

the

to

County's

Case 8:13.cv.00063.DKC

liability

under

demonstrate
rights,

42 U.S.C.

that

but

5

Oladipo

that

Filed 06/13/14 Page 12 of 16

Document 6~

he

violated

did

practice, or policy.

1983, Plaintiff

so

not

Plaintiff's

pursuant

to

only

has

to

constitutional

a

County

custom,

This will necessitate the introduction of

evidence of other allegations of discrimination.

Much of this

evidence would be irrelevant as to the events between Plaintiff
and

Oladipo

and

would

be

highly

prejudicial

to

Oladipo.

Furthermore, becaus~ County liability is predicated on Oladipo's
violation

of

trials makes

Plaintiff's

constitutional

sense because

a verdict

rights,

bifurcating

in Oladipo's

trial will

obviate the need for a County trial.
In

Plaintiff

opposition,

argues

that

the

County

will

already be part of the case as it is vicariously liable for the
actions

of

standards
Section

Oladipo

used

to

under

Title

VII

(Count I).

judge a discrimination

Because

claim brought

the

under

1983 are the same as those for a Title VII claim, it

would be inefficient
Oladipo

as

against

an

the

Furthermore,

to try the constitutional claims

individual

County
Count

against Oladipo

for
II

separate
the

is

acts

for

from
of

the Title

Oladipo,

retaliation,
A

in Count III.

a

VII

its
claim

against
claims

employee.
not

finding that Oladipo

made

is not

liable on Count III would do nothing to eliminate the need for a
second
Finally,

trial

against

Plaintiff

the

argues

County
that
12

on
the

the

retaliation

evidence

that

claim.

would

be

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

brought

Filed 06/13/14

Page 13 of 16

forth in Count III that the County failed to train its

employees
with

Document 66

and have adequate procedures

the

affirmative

defending

the

policies

defenses

harassment

and practices

the

claim,

in place would overlap
County

has

specifically

in place to prevent

invoked
that

it

in
had

and correct sexual

harassment and that Plaintiff failed to reasonably avail herself
of

said

Counts

policies
I

County's

and

and practices.

II

(~Plaintiff failed

internal

'\Defendant's

unlawful

(See ECF No. 27, Answer

anti-harassment

actions

were

not

to

avail

policies

undertaken

herself

and

of

to
the

procedures

H

pursuant

to

;

any

or discriminatory County policies, customs, practices,

or procedures. H))
Plaintiff's

arguments

bifurcate will be denied.

are

persuasive

and

the

motion

Unlike the cases cited by the County,

here the County is not simply an ~inactive defendant,
only

if

Plaintiff. can

constitutional

to

first prove

that

Oladipo

liable

H

violated

right to be free from discrimination.

her

Plaintiff

also seeks to hold the County liable for Oladipo's acts under
Title

VII,

hostile

it will be liable

if Oladipo

created a

environment because Oladipo was Plaintiff's supervisor.

Burlington

Because

for which

Indus.,

of

Inc.

v.

Ellerth,

this potentially

524

vicarious

U.s.

742,

765

(1998).

liability, employers

in

Title VII hostile work environment claims can be more active, by
asserting

as

a

defense

that

the
13

plaintiff

failed

to

tak~

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

advantage
the

County

that
v.

of

the

Document 66

available
has

remedial

invoked

County

will

that

not

Town of Bladensburg,

which
an

the

County

employer

only

case

discrimination
Morgan

v.

(D.Md.

Dec.

heavily,

County

only

the

of

decision.

Id.

of

were

*7.

to

involved

that
it

it

Uquite

The County's

a case

Section

under

2013

premature

H

to

1983.

WL 6898494
did

but,
to

The

employment

Grimm

appropriate

motion

against

Section

Judge

upon

1983.

only

PWG-13-1394,

may be

was

indicating

claims

involving

Furthermore,

above,

Marryshow

(D.Md. 1991),

solely

No.

case,
H

under

brought

Rockville,

case,

at

this

defendant.

solely

cites

deciding

the

318

Page 14 of 16

As discussed

in

liability

2013) .

30,

bifurcate,
state

139 F.R.D.

claims
City

defense

supervisory

the

measures.

be an Uinactive

relies

for

Filed 06/13/14

not
given

make

bifurcate

will

that
be

denied.2
Therefore,

for

Memorandum Opinion,
United

States

the
. it

District

is

reasons
this
Court

12th
for

in

stated
day

of

June,

the

District

the

foregoing

2014,
of

by

the

Maryland,

ORDERED
that:

2 In
its
reply,
the County takes
a different
tack,
arguing
that
Plaintiff
is only opposing
bifurcation
because
she wants to
admit evidence
of Oladipo's
allegedly
wrongful
prior
bad acts.
But, the County argues,
those
acts
are from many years
ago and
are too remote to be admissible
and, in addition,
would result
in undue prejudice.
These arguments
are best
saved for trial,
if and when one occurs.

14

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

1.

Document 66

Filed 06/13/14

Page 15 of 16

The motion for a protective order filed by Defendants

Prince George's

County,

Maryland

and Christopher

Oladipo

(ECF

releasing

the

Fajim?lu-Okonede

and

No. 48) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED IN PART;
2.

The

parties

are

not

.excerpts of the depositions
Ms. Angela

Crankfield

prohibited

of Ms. Toyin

from

provided by Plaintiff

in her opposition

(ECF Nos. 51-1 and 51-4);
3.

The parties are prohibited from releasing the excerpts

of the deposition of Mr. Raymond Gheen provided by Plaintiff in
her opposition (ECF No. 51-3);
4.
County,

The

motion

Maryland

for bifurcation

(ECF No.

47)

BE,

filed by
and

the

Prince George's.
same

hereby

IS,

DENIED;
5.

The motions to seal (ECF Nos. 49, 55, 62, and 65) BE,

and the same hereby ARE, GRANTED;
6.

ECF Nos. 48, 51, and 54, and 63 shall remain SEALED in

their entirety;
7.

This memorandum opinion and order shall be filed UNDER

SEAL temporarily and the parties will suggest redactions within
fourteen (14) days; and

15

Case 8:13-cv-00063-DKC

8.
Opinion

The

clerk

and Order

Document 66

will

to counsel

Filed 06/13/14

transmit

copies

of

the

Page 16 of 16

Memorandum

for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District

16

Judge