Chester et al v. Beard et al

Filing 144

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. By 9:00 a.m. on October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs shall supplement their motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories and requests for production of documents by submitting a tailored and specific set of the discovery requests that Plaintiffs wish to propound upon Defendants. 2. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to file this supplemental information under seal without additional leave of Court. 3. Defendants shall be prepared to identify for the Court any substantive objections to the requested discovery, and to advise the Court and the parties regarding these substantive objections during the conference call scheduled with District Court on Thursday, October 25, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 24, 2012. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK ROBERT CHESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil. No. 1:08-CV-1261
(Chief Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On October 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking leave to
serve additional interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (Doc.
135.) As the motion makes clear, however, Plaintiffs actually propounded this
discovery prior to filing the motion, and represented that Defendants had refused to
answer the discovery solely on the grounds that the requests exceeded the
discovery limitations prescribed in the case management order entered in this case
in 2009 (Doc. 58). (Id.)
Plaintiffs represent that the newly propounded discovery requests were
necessitated by changes that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania made recently
with respect to its death-penalty protocol. Plaintiffs further represent that this
matter is particularly urgent, and time is of the essence in discovering the
information sought, because the Commonwealth has issued a death warrant

scheduling the execution of Hubert Michael, Jr. for November 8, 2012.
Due to a scheduling conflict that arose immediately following the
submission of the motion, the district court referred the emergency motion to the
undersigned for initial and prompt consideration. We convened the parties for a
telephone conference at 2:30 p.m. on October 24, 2012, to address Plaintiffs’
motion and Defendants’ opposition thereto. During this call, after hearing
argument from all parties, the Court instructed the parties that Defendants’
objections to the proposed discovery would be overruled to the extent they were
based solely on limitations set forth in a case management order issued almost
exactly three years ago, in light of the undisputed changed circumstances presented
in this case with respect to the Commonwealth’s newly developed death-penalty
protocol.
However, we also instructed Plaintiffs that they would be directed
immediately to supplement their motion by submitting under seal carefully tailored
discovery requests, requests that may have now been narrowed by information that
the Commonwealth has already provided. The Court thereafter instructed
Defendants to be prepared promptly to offer substantive objections to Plaintiffs’
discovery requests, to ensure that the Court is in the position to make an informed
judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ discovery request without undue delay,
2

mindful of the compressed nature of this issue in light of the pending execution of
Hubert Michael, Jr. scheduled to be carried out in just over two weeks.
Accordingly, in accordance with the instructions provided to the parties
during today’s telephone conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

By 9:00 a.m. on October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs shall supplement their
motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories and requests for
production of documents by submitting a tailored and specific set of
the discovery requests that Plaintiffs wish to propound upon
Defendants.

2.

Plaintiffs shall be permitted to file this supplemental information
under seal without additional leave of Court.

3.

Defendants shall be prepared to identify for the Court any substantive
objections to the requested discovery, and to advise the Court and the
parties regarding these substantive objections during the conference
call scheduled with District Court on Thursday, October 25, 2012, at
1:30 p.m.

/S/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
So ordered this 24th day of October, 2012

3