GROHS et al v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
Filing
96
OPINION AND ORDER that Mr. Grohs motion to compel is granted again and Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauros motion for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part. All responsive documents shall be produced by Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro to Mr. Grohs counsel immediately and subject to the DCO as modified. Documents marked confidential may be shown to Mr. Grohs by his counsel to the extent necessary to prosecute his claims, but shall be retained by his counsel as provided for in the DCO.; etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 11/30/15. (sr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
GROHS,
Civil Action No.
2:12-CV-00905-SDW-SCM
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER ON
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS
WITHHELD BY DEFENDANTS
v.
YATAURO, et al.,
Defendants.
STEVEN C. MANNION, United States Magistrate Judge:
Now before the Court is the informal motion by Plaintiff
Steven
Grohs
production
(“Mr.
of
Grohs”)
discovery
for
and
the
an
order
informal
compelling
cross-motion
the
by
Defendants Gary Lanigan (“Mr. Lanigan”) and Meg Yatauro (“Ms.
Yatauro”) for a protective order.
Upon consideration of the
parties' submissions and for the reasons set forth herein, the
motion
to
compel
is
granted
and
the
cross-motion
for
a
protective order is granted in part.
I.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Factual Background
This case is brought by Mr. Grohs against Mr. Lanigan and
Ms.
Yatauro
for
living
conditions
1
at
New
Jersey’s
Special
Treatment
serves
Unit
as
located
the
Corrections.2
in
Avenel,
Commissioner
and
New
head
Jersey.1
of
the
Mr.
Lanigan
Department
of
Ms. Yatauro serves as the Administrator and head
of the Special Treatment Unit.3
The facility consists of two separate buildings designated
as the Main Unit (individual cells) and the Annex (open-bay
dormitories). . . . ”4
buildings.5
Mr. Grohs has been housed in both
The heat and hot water for the facility is supplied
from a steam generating plant at another facility.6
heat
is
activated
residents’
use.
At
the
all
hot
water
pertinent
becomes
times
“[W]hen the
inadequate
there
has
for
been
an
ongoing and persistent issue of an inadequate hot water supply
for showering purposes at the Special Treatment Unit.
temperatures
at
the
Special
Treatment
Unit
rarely
Hot water
exceed
73
degrees and is more often colder.
When the water does exceed 73
degrees
about
it
only
remains
so
for
35
seconds,
and
then
fluctuates between cold and freezing cold through the duration
1
(See generally ECF Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 73).
2
(Id. at ¶ 2.4).
3
(Id. at ¶ 2.3).
4
(Id. at ¶ 3.2).
5
(Id.).
6
(Id. at ¶ 3.3).
2
of any timed shower.”7
In addition, the shower room is poorly
insulated and the air temperature is often too cold as well.8
B. Procedural History
Mr. Grohs filed his complaint on February 14, 2012 against
Mr.
Lanigan
answered
the
and
Ms.
Yatauro.9
complaint
on
Mr.
December
Lanigan
4,
and
2013.10
Ms.
Yatauro
An
Amended
Complaint was filed on May 29, 2015 and answered on July 8,
2015.11
On March 9, 2015, the Court entered an amended scheduling
order (“Scheduling Order”).12 The Scheduling Order prescribed the
timing for the parties to serve and respond to interrogatories,
document demands, and requests for admissions in accordance with
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, and 36, respectively.13
On October 2, 2015, Mr. Grohs made an informal motion to
compel discovery from Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro.14
7
(Id. at ¶ 3.4).
8
(Id. at ¶ 3.5(a)).
9
(D.E. 1).
10
(D.E. 31).
11
(D.E. 73, 75).
12
(D.E. 69).
13
(Id. at ¶ 2).
14
(D.E. 83).
3
Mr. Grohs
complained that he served discovery demands on April 24, 2015,
but Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro did not timely respond.15
So,
counsel
the
met
and
conferred
on
July
outstanding discovery disputes.
23,
2015
to
resolve
“Following that conference, on
August 3, 2015, the parties submitted a joint letter to [the]
Court memorializing their agreement that, among other things,
Defendants
would
produce
responsive
documents
on
or
before
September 15, 2015.”16
Mr.
Lanigan
and
Ms.
Yatauro
did
not
counsel sought additional time to respond.17
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro
respond.18
comply
and
their
On October 1, 2015,
again sought additional time to
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro followed that request
with another request seeking an additional 14-day extension.19
On October 5, 2015, the Court granted Mr. Grohs’ informal
motion to compel responses to discovery.
Mr. Lanigan and Ms.
Yatauro were required to respond to all outstanding discovery by
October 23, 2015.20
15
(Id.).
16
(Id.).
17
(Id.).
18
(Id.).
19
(D.E. 82).
20
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro were further
(D.E. 86 at ¶ 2).
4
warned
by
the
`confidential’
Court
that
information
“any
must
be
objections
properly
based
supported
upon
with
citations to the applicable legal authority.”21
Mr.
Lanigan
extension.22
discovery,
and
Ms.
Yatauro
then
requested
a
one-week
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro produced some document
but
alleged
employee vacations.23
that
their
searches
were
hampered
by
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro stated that a
complete production would be made by November 20, 2015.24
Mr.
discovery
Lanigan
and
Ms.
confidentiality
Yatauro
order
by
were
ordered
November
16,
to
propose
2015.25
a
Mr.
Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro were also given an extension to produce
by November 25, 2015.26
Mr.
Lanigan
and
Ms.
Yatauro
filed
a
proposed
confidentiality order on November 16, 2015.27
discovery
Two days later,
they filed a more restrictive proposed discovery confidentiality
21
(Id.).
22
(D.E. 87).
23
(D.E. 88).
24
(Id.).
25
(D.E. 89 at ¶ 1).
26
(Id. at ¶ 2).
27
(D.E. 90).
5
order.28
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro contend that their new
proposal tracks Appendix S, with the “exception . . . that . . .
paragraphs 4d, 5, and 6, prohibit disclosure of the documents to
the plaintiff or any other inmate or former inmate of the prison
system.”29
II.
DISCUSSION
A. § 636, Magistrate Judge Authority
Magistrate
judges
are
authorized
by
28
U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1)(A) to decide any non-dispositive motion designated by
the Court. This District has specified that magistrate judges
may
determine
any
non-dispositive
pre-trial
motion.30
This
District has further provided in Local Civil Rule 37.1 that
discovery disputes are to be brought to the magistrate judge on
an
informal
basis.
Decisions
by
magistrate
judges
must
be
upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”31
B. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), Liberal Policy
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth “a liberal
policy
for
providing
discovery.”32
Federal
Rule
28
(D.E. 92).
29
(D.E. 92-2).
30
L.Civ.R. 72.1(a)(1).
31
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
32
Jones v. DeRosa, 238 F.R.D. 157, 163 (D.N.J. 2006).
6
of
Civil
Procedure
26
defines
the
bounds
of
discovery.33
relevant
Pursuant to subparagraph (b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding
party’s
any
claim
nonprivileged
or
matter
defense.”34
The
that
is
relevant
Federal
Rules
Procedure “allow broad and liberal discovery.”35
of
to
any
Civil
Courts have
interpreted the federal rules to mean that discovery encompasses
“any matter that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other
matter[s] that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the
case.”36
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro have gathered documents they
believe to be relevant and responsive to Mr. Grohs’ discovery
requests.
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro have withheld production
of
documents,
the
requesting
entry
of
a
discovery
confidentiality order that exceeds the restrictions prescribed
by Appendix S before their production.
Defense counsel certified that “[t]he following documents
have been or are anticipated to be requested by plaintiff during
the course of discovery and without waiving any privileges or
immunities if produced: various corrections policies, budgets,
33
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.
34
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
35
Pacitti v. Macy’s, 193 F.3d 766, 777 (3d Cir. 1999).
36
Kopacz v. Del. River and Bay Auth., 225 F.R.D. 494, 497
(D.N.J. 2004).
7
maintenance
work
orders,
invoices
for
services
performed,
complaints about the heating system and hot water system, and
potentially,
employees.”37
personnel
records
of
defendants
and
other
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro did not, however,
produce a privilege log or any document that properly describes
the documents for which protection is sought and the basis for
their protection.38
The Court will take Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro at their
word
and
presume
without
deciding
that
the
documents
are
relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this litigation.
From there, however, “[d]efendants must demonstrate to the court
that their relevancy is outweighed by the specific harm that
would ensue from their disclosure . . . .”39
That burden has not
been met here.
Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro merely generalize that,
The Department simply can’t anticipate when
a particular piece of information may break
one of the links of the security system that
insures
peace
and
compliance
in
its
institutions. If the recent terrorist events
show
anything,
it
is
that
seemingly
innocuous information can become deadly if
it falls into the wrong hands. It goes
37
(D.E. 92 at ¶ 4).
38
What constitutes a proper privilege log entry was discussed
in Memory Bowl v. N. Pointe Ins. Co., 280 F.R.D. 181, 187
(D.N.J. 2012).
39
Torres v. Kuzniasz, 936 F. Supp. 1201, 1212 (D.N.J. 1996).
8
without saying that inmates are the wrong
hands. For this reason, the Department of
Corrections requests that the plaintiff be
denied access to the disclosed documents.40
The
Court
understands
confidentiality
of
documents
concern
which
the
internal
State’s
affairs
blueprints
or
policy
concerning
documents
diagrams
and
of
the
certain
detention
facilities, also the sensitivity of certain personnel records.
However,
while
Mr.
Lanigan
and
Ms.
Yatauro
were
seeking
extension after extension, their time could have been used more
efficiently
to
catalog
the
responsive
documents,
produce
a
privilege log (or its confidentiality equivalent), and then seek
a protective order, but they did not.
Mr. Lanigan and Ms.
Yatauro only requested a protective order at the thirteenth hour
and still failed to produce a certification from Ms. Yatauro
(i.e., the ranking detention facility official) to support their
arguments.
Mere citation to state policies and “broad conclusions of
harm are insufficient to meet the defendants’ burden of proving
that
the
withheld
disclosure.41
documents
are
protected
.
.
.”
from
If it were, the policies driving civil rights
legislation could be thwarted anytime state or local officials
40
(D.E. 92-2).
41
Torres, 936 F. Supp. at 1213.
9
determined what evidence was discoverable in cases brought to
review their actions.42
Mr.
Lanigan
immediately
discovery
and
produce
Ms.
all
Yatauro
responsive
confidentiality
order
are
therefore
discovery
signed
today
ordered
subject
and
as
to
to
the
modified
below.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
IT IS on this Monday, November 30, 2015,
1. ORDERED that Mr. Grohs’ motion to compel is granted again
and Mr. Lanigan and Ms. Yatauro’s motion for a protective
order is granted in part and denied in part; and it is
further
2. ORDERED that all responsive documents shall be produced by
Mr.
Lanigan
and
Ms.
Yatauro
to
Mr.
Grohs’
counsel
immediately and subject to the DCO as modified here; and it
is further
3. ORDERED that documents marked confidential may be shown to
Mr.
Grohs
by
his
counsel
to
the
extent
necessary
to
prosecute his claims, but shall be retained by his counsel
42
Id.
10
as provided for in the DCO.
11/30/2015 2:13:47 PM
Original: Clerk of the Court
cc: All parties
File
11
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?