Johnson v. Wetzel et al

Filing 49

ORDER re: Johnson's motion to compel discovery 39 - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Motion DENIED w/ re: Boyd & Perez email.; 2. Subject to req'mt that all cnsl execute prop conf order prepped by defts & reviewed by undersigned, motion oth erwise conditionally GRANTED.; 3. Upon execution by parties of defts' prop conf agmt & filing of same w/ ct defts shall forthwith produce to Johnson's cnsl in unredacted form the following:... (see Paras 3a-3i for specifics).; 4. Violation of anticipated conf agmt by any party thereto may result in impositio of appropriate sanctions. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/10/16. (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 10th day of August, 2016, upon consideration of the court’s
memorandum (Doc. 45) and order (Doc. 46) dated August 5, 2016, granting in part
and deferring in part the motion (Doc. 39) to compel discovery filed by plaintiff
Arthur Johnson (“Johnson”), wherein the court determined that Johnson has
overcome the deliberative process privilege asserted by defendants with respect
to certain documents requested sub judice, but otherwise determined to defer,
pending in camera inspection, any ruling concerning defendants’ assertion that
disclosure of said documents implicates institutional security and individual safety
concerns, and that at least one document is protected attorney work product, and,
following an in camera inspection, and upon review of the declaration of John
Wetzel, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, stating with
particularity the nature and source of the threat posed by disclosure of the
requested documents, and defendants’ proposed confidentiality agreement,
the court finding, with respect to defendants’ security risk assertions, that public
disclosure of the requested documents may jeopardize both institutional security

and the individual safety of correctional officers, staff, and inmates, and that
defendants’ proposed confidentiality order strikes an appropriate balance between
the need to produce uniquely probative discovery to counsel for Johnson while
mitigating institutional security and individual safety concerns attending broader
disclosure, see, e.g., Mincy v. Chmielewski, No. 1:05-CV-292, 2006 WL 3042968, at *2
(M.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2006); and the court finding further, with respect to defendants’
assertion of attorney work product privilege as to one document in particular, to
wit: an email between Jaime Boyd (“Boyd”) and Theron Perez (“Perez”), counsel
for the Department, that said document does in fact reflect the legal opinions of
counsel for the Department with respect to the subject matter of this litigation and
is thus privileged, see FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Johnson’s motion (Doc. 39) to compel is DENIED with respect to the
Boyd and Perez email.

2.

Subject to the requirement that all counsel execute the proposed
confidentiality order prepared by defendants and reviewed by the
undersigned, Johnson’s motion (Doc. 39) to compel is otherwise
conditionally GRANTED.

3.

Upon execution by all parties of defendants’ proposed confidentiality
agreement and filing of same with the court, defendants shall forthwith
produce to Johnson’s counsel, in unredacted form, the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.

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”;

2

e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
4.

Four annual RRL psychological evaluations dated January 13,
2012, August 19, 2013, November 20, 2014, and October 6, 2015;
The memorandum from Superintendent Michael Barone to
Secretary Wetzel dated August 4, 2009;
The custodial status of similarly-situated inmates is relevant to
Johnson’s instant constitutional claims;
The “Integrated Case Summary – Classification”; and
The “inmate Query – Separations.”

Violation of the anticipated confidentiality agreement by any party
thereto may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions.

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