Brown v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections

Filing 161

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - 1. The motions to compel (Doc. 160 ) and for discovery (Doc. 159 ) are DENIED. 2. On or before March 31, 2021 the parties shall meet, confer and exchange all exhibits they intend to introduce at trial. 3. On or before Apr il 7, 2021, the parties shall file a joint status report with the court addressing the issue of access to this confidential information andidentifying any remaining discovery issues. 4. Browns motion for extension of time which sought to extend a pr e-trial motions deadline from March 15 to March 18, 2021. (Doc. 158 ) is GRANTED and IT IS ORDERED that to the extent that Brown wishes to file any other pre-trial motions she must do so on or before March 18, 2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on March 16, 2021. (kjn)

Case 1:15-cv-00918-CCC-MCC Document 161 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAWN L. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:15-CV-918

(Judge Conner)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Dawn Brown, is a former employee of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections. In 2015, Brown brought a series of sweeping workplace
discrimination claims against her former employers. The instant case was not
Brown’s first lawsuit against the Department of Corrections. Previously in 2014,
Brown had filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against her employer relating to alleged
acts of sexual harassment and retaliation that took place beginning in 2009. Brown
v. Dep’t. of Corrections, Civil No. 1:14-CV-201. In 2017, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of all of the defendants, except one defendant who had not been

Case 1:15-cv-00918-CCC-MCC Document 161 Filed 03/16/21 Page 2 of 5

served by Brown. Brown then voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit as to this remaining
defendant.
In the meanwhile, Brown filed this second workplace discrimination lawsuit
in 2015. This case has been pending for nearly six years. Over the span of this
longstanding litigation, the remaining claims in Brown’s lawsuit have been
narrowed considerably. At this juncture, Brown’s sole remaining legal claim is an
allegation that she was discharged in July of 2015 in retaliation for the exercise of
her First Amendment rights.
Brown is now representing herself in this lawsuit, her previous counsel having
withdrawn due to irreconcilable conflicts with the plaintiff. (Docs. 104-112). In this
capacity, acting as her own counsel Brown filed a spate of motions, including a
pleading styled as a motion for Rule 37 sanctions, which alleged that the defendants
have failed to respond to discovery and produce requested information. (Doc. 132).
Brown has also filed another, largely redundant motion seeking disclosure of
documents that were not disclosed by the defendants. (Doc.127). The defendants
responded to these discovery motions (Doc. 133, 145), explaining that when Brown
was previously represented by counsel, certain records were produced subject to a
confidentiality agreement. According to the defense these records included certain
confidential DOC policies, procedure manuals, medical information, classification,
and programming related documentation pertaining to inmates and other related
2

Case 1:15-cv-00918-CCC-MCC Document 161 Filed 03/16/21 Page 3 of 5

documents. (Doc. 133, at 2). The defendants aver that Brown has refused to be bound
by this confidentiality agreement and has instead indicated that she intends to
broadcast these sensitive matters publicly. (Id.) Given this prior disclosure, and
Brown’s refusal to abide by the confidentiality agreement previously entered into in
this case, the defendants indicated that sanctions were not warranted here, but stated
that they would identify for Brown those exhibits which they intend to use at trial at
the pre-trial conference to be scheduled in this case. (Id.)
On February 2, 2021,we entered an order which addressed these issues and
set a schedule for the parties to meet, confer and resolve these questions. (Doc. 146).
We ordered the parties to meet before March 31, 2021 to attempt to resolve these
questions and then provide us with a status report by April 7, 2021 identifying
unresolved discovery issues. (Id.) Brown may not have understood our prior order
because she has now filed two more motions which repeat the claims we previously
addressed in our February 2, 2021 order and seek disclosure of defense exhibits as
well as access to these confidential documents contained in a CD given to her prior
counsel. (Docs. 159, 160). Brown also requests a 3-day extension of time in which
to file additional pre-trial motions, until March 18, 2021. (Doc. 158).
Accordingly, consistent with our prior order of February 2, 2021, IT IS
ORDERED as follows:

3

Case 1:15-cv-00918-CCC-MCC Document 161 Filed 03/16/21 Page 4 of 5

1. The motions to compel (Doc. 160) and for discovery (Doc. 159) are
DENIED, without prejudice and the parties are ordered to follow the
course previously prescribed by the court for the resolution of discovery
questions, including issues concerning access to previously disclosed
confidential materials.
2. On or before March 31, 2021 the parties shall meet, confer and exchange
all exhibits they intend to introduce at trial. The parties will also address
the issue of access to these confidential materials. In that regard, the parties
should ascertain whether the plaintiff is willing to abide by a
confidentiality agreement relating to these materials, or whether any
further accommodations can be made to resolve the question of access to
this information.
3. On or before April 7, 2021, the parties shall file a joint status report with
the court addressing the issue of access to this confidential information and
identifying any remaining discovery issues. If the issue of access to
confidential documents remains unresolved the defendant shall provide the
disputed records to the court for its in camera review, along with a
privilege log, which will be provided to the court and Brown. If the status
report identifies other unresolved issues, the court may request further
submissions from the parties.
4

Case 1:15-cv-00918-CCC-MCC Document 161 Filed 03/16/21 Page 5 of 5

4. Brown’s motion for extension of time which sought to extend a pre-trial
motions deadline from March 15 to March 18, 2021. (Doc. 158) is
GRANTED and IT IS ORDERED that to the extent that Brown wishes to
file any other pre-trial motions she must do so on or before March 18,
2021.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of March 2021.

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

5