Johnson v. Wetzel et al

Filing 46

ORDER (Memorandum 45 filed previously as separate docket entry) GRANTING & DEFERRING portions of motion to compel discovery 39 as set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 & 4 of order (... see for specifics) & directing cnsl for defts to produce docs id& #039;d in Paras 1, 2 & 3 above as well as Integrated CAse Summary -Classification & Inmate Query - Separations for in camera review by ct by no later than nooonon 8/9/16... together w/ statement by Sec Wetzesl id'ng... nature & source of threat posed by disclosure... as well as prop order or conf agmt to govern any production or disclosure of said docs. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/5/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARTHUR JOHNSON,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN WETZEL, Secretary of
the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-863
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of August, 2016, upon consideration of the
motion (Doc. 39) by plaintiff Arthur Johnson (“Johnson”) to compel discovery,
and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Johnson’s motion (Doc. 39) to compel is GRANTED to the extent the
court declines to apply the deliberate process privilege to any of the
following documents:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Four (4) DC-46 vote sheets, dated September 21, 2012, October
16, 2013, August 28, 2014, and August 20, 2015;
Three RRL annual review sheets;
The memorandum from Senior Policy Analyst Madeline
McPherson to John Wetzel, Secretary of the Department of
Corrections (“Department”) dated October 23, 2015;
The “RRL Checklist”;
Four annual RRL psychological evaluations dated January 13,
2012, August 19, 2013, November 20, 2014, and October 6, 2015;
and
The memorandum from Superintendent Michael Barone to
Secretary Wetzel dated August 4, 2009.

2.

Johnson’s motion (Doc. 39) is further GRANTED to the extent the
court concludes that the custodial status of similarly-situated inmates
is relevant to Johnson’s instant constitutional claims.

3.

Johnson’s motion (Doc. 39) is DEFERRED to the extent it requests
production of an email between Jaime Boyd, assistant counsel for
the Department, and Theron Perez, the Department’s chief counsel,
pending an in camera review of the email by the court to determine
whether the attorney work product privilege applies thereto.

4.

Johnson’s motion (Doc. 39) is further DEFERRED to the extent it
requests production of the documents identified in paragraphs 1, 2,
and 3, pending an in camera review of the documents by the court to
determine whether production thereof poses a risk to institutional
security or individual safety and whether a confidentiality agreement
or protective order must attend any production of said documents.

5.

Counsel for defendants shall produce the documents identified in
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, as well as the “Integrated Case
Summary– Classification” and “Inmate Query – Separations,” for
in camera review by the court no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
August 9, 2016. Counsel shall produce these documents together with
a statement by Secretary Wetzel identifying with particularity the
nature and source of the threat posed by disclosure of each of the
documents enumerated in paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as a proposed
protective order or confidentiality agreement to govern any production
or disclosure of said documents.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania