Ball v. Struthers et al

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM ORDER - Denying 69 MOTION to Compel filed by Dawn Ball.Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on March 30, 2012. (kjn )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAWN BALL,
Plaintiff
v.
C.O. STRUTHERS, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:11-CV-1265

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
In this action, the Plaintiff, Dawn Ball, a state inmate, housed at the State
Correctional Institution, Muncy, has sued 8 individuals employed by the Department
of Corrections, alleging that she was wrongfully denied feminine hygiene products
by the Defendants from June 26 through June 29, 2011. (Doc. 1)
This case now comes before the Court for resolution of a discovery dispute.
Specifically, Ball filed a motion to compel production of wide-ranging material,
which included the complete work histories of the Defendants, ostensibly to
determine whether in the past they have done anything like what she alleges in this
litigation. On March 12, 2012, we entered an order which, in part, stated that to the
extent Ball sought to engage in a wholesale review of the personnel files of the
Defendants to determine whether they have engaged in similar alleged misconduct,
we would deny that request since Defendants and witnesses do not forfeit their

personal privacy in personnel records when they are sued. Harris v. Harley-Davidson
Motor Co. Operations, Inc., No. 09-1449, 2010 WL 4683776, *5 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 10,
2010), Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 115 (E.D. Pa. 1994)(“personnel files are
confidential and discovery should be limited.”).
However, to the extent that Ball alleged that she sought disciplinary documents
relating to other similar alleged episodes of prisoner abuse we found that in the past
courts have reconciled the interests of inmate-plaintiffs and corrections officials by
rejecting broadly framed requests for access to prison records, see Paluch v. Dawson,
No. 06-1751, 2007 WL 4375937, *4-5 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2007), while conducting
an in camera review of those records which may be relevant to more narrowly
tailored discovery demands. Paluch v. Dawson, No. 06-175, 2008 WL 2785638, *3
(M.D. Pa. July 17, 2008). We then directed the Defendants to provide to the Court
for its in camera inspection any responsive personnel discipline records, citing the
Defendants for acts similar to those alleged here. Armed with this information the
Court could then determine: (1) whether this information is relevant to the issues
raised in this case; (2) whether it is subject to any valid claim of privilege recognized
by the Federal Rules; and (3) to what extent, in what format, and under what
conditions it may be released to the Plaintiff.

2

The Defendants have complied with this request and we have reviewed their
in camera submission which discloses that there has been no discipline of any of the
Defendants, with one exception, a reprimand of one staff member who is alleged to
have permitted an inmate to be briefly unrestrained under circumstances where prison
policy called for the application of physical restraints. Because this isolated citation
for undue leniency is not relevant to the issues raised in this litigation, we will,
therefore, DENY Ball’s remaining request to compel production of this information.
So ordered this 30th day of March 2012.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

3