Lyons v. Beard et al

Filing 191

MEMORANDUM ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.Plaintiffs request for unredacted copies of Inmate Anthony Boykings Program Review Committee (PRC) Reports for the period from February 2006 through his release from the SMU at SCI-Camp Hill is DENIED. 2 .On or before Monday, September 21, 2011, Defendants shall provide the Plaintiff copies of Plaintiffs DC-17X reports from April 5, 2006 - June 21, 2006.The defendants may, but are not required to redact from thee reports the names of non-defendant corrections officers in the column listed as Staff member Signature. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 19, 2011. (kjn )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC LYONS,
Plaintiff
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-444
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION

In this civil action, Plaintiff Eric Lyons has brought claims against a number of
employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, alleging that these
defendants violated his right under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when Defendants solicited
other inmates to assault him while he was held in the Special Management Unit
(“SMU”) at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (“SCI-Camp Hill”).
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants used excessive force in their efforts to break up
a fight between Plaintiff and Anthony Boyking, another inmate in the SMU at SCICamp Hill, whom Plaintiff claims corrections staff induced to assault him on June 19,
2006.
Now pending before the Court are two remaining issues relating to discovery

motions that we previously addressed on June 17, 2011.
These two matters related to Lyons’ requests for two items of discovery: First,
Lyons requests that he be permitted to examine the Plaintiff’s DC-17X reports from
April 5, 2006 - June 21, 2006. These DC-17X reports detail the monitoring of the
Plaintiff’s daily activities in the Special Management Unit during the weeks
immediately preceding, and in the days immediately following, the alleged assault of
Lyons by inmate Boyking. In a factual proffer tendered by Lyons at the Court’s
direction (Doc. 157), Lyons asserts that these DC-17X reports are relevant because
they will show that Lyons was a compliant, non-disruptive inmate in the days and
weeks preceding this incident, thus rebutting any assertion that Lyons was acting out
in an aggressive fashion at this time. (Id.)
Second, Lyons seeks PRC reports relating to inmate Boyking. These reports are
periodic reviews of Boyking’s institutional adjustment in the SMU program, and
Lyons proffers that he requires this information in order to determine whether prison
officials had advance knowledge of Boyking’s propensity to violence towards him and
to ascertain whether Boyking received favorable treatment from prison officials after
his assault on Lyons. (Doc. 157.) We note that the Department of Corrections has
already released some of this material to Lyons. Specifically the defendants have
produced reports documenting violence by Boyking. Nonetheless, Lyons seeks access
2

to the entirety of Boyking’s PRC files.
In order to engage in an informed review of these matters we directed the
defendants to provide us with these materials for our in camera review. Having
conducted this review, we conclude that Lyons should be provided copies of his DC17X reports, but find that the disclosures previously made from Boyking’s PRC file
fully satisfy the defendants’ discovery obligations and deny Lyons’ request for further
access to those files.
II.

DISCUSSION

Lyons’ requests call upon the Court to exercise its authority to regulate
discovery in this case. Issues relating to the scope and timing of discovery permitted
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rest in the sound discretion of the Court.
Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). A court’s
decisions regarding the conduct of discovery will be disturbed only upon a showing
of an abuse of discretion. Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir.
1983).
This discretion is guided, however, by certain basic principles. Thus, at the
outset, it is clear that Rule 26's broad definition of that which can be obtained through
discovery reaches only “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense.” Therefore, valid claims of relevance and privilege still cabin and restrict the
3

court’s discretion in ruling on discovery issues. Furthermore, the scope of discovery
permitted by Rule 26 embraces all “relevant information” a concept which is defined
in the following terms: “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.”
A party moving to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving the
relevance of the requested information. Morrison v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 203
F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D.Pa. 2001). Once that initial burden is met, “the party resisting
the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that
the requested discovery (1) does not come within the broad scope of relevance as
defined under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the
potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in
favor of broad disclosure.” In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, 261 F.R.D. 570, 573
(D.Kan. 2009).
1.

Inmate Boyking’s PRC Reports.

Judged against these standards we find that Lyons has not met his burden of
proof with respect to his request that Defendants provide him copies of Inmate
Boyking’s Program Review Committee (“PRC”) Reports from February 2006 through
Boyking’s release from the SMU program. As we have noted, Defendants have

4

already produced one of Boyking’s PRC reports, after concluding that its relevance
to Plaintiff’s case was clear. Defendants have objected to producing any additional
PRC reports, contending that the Department of Corrections carefully guards against
dissemination of information contained within the reports to the inmate community,
and that release of such information to Plaintiff would compromise institutional
security and permit Plaintiff’s access to sensitive information about prison operations.
However, Defendants have agreed to provide Boyking’s PRC records to the Court for
in camera review in order to balance Lyons’s “need for information contained in the
PRC reports that reflects how Boyking progressed through the SMU Program with the
Department’s real and legitimate security concerns with providing personal
information about Boyking to Lyons, and allowing Lyons to possess copies of parts
of Boyking’s inmate file.” (Doc. 136, at 9-10.)
Having conducted this in camera review we conclude that the remaining PRC
reports contain nothing that would be relevant to the issues framed in this lawsuit. We
further find that the release of these reports would potentially violate the privacy
rights of the third party named in the reports, Mr. Boyking. Therefore, in the exercise
of our discretion we will deny this request. See Mincy v. Chmielewski, No. 05-292,
2006 WL 3042968 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 25, 2006)(denying access to third-party complaints
on privacy grounds).
5

2.

Plaintiff’s DC-17X Reports from April 5, 2006 - June 21, 2006.

As for the Plaintiff’s requests that Defendants be required to produce his DC17X, or cumulative adjustment record, for the approximately two-month period
between April 5, 2006, and June 21, 2006, Lyons asserts that these reports are relevant
because they will show that Lyons was a compliant, non-disruptive inmate in the days
and weeks preceding this incident, thus rebutting any assertion that Lyons was acting
out in an aggressive fashion at this time. Having reviewed these reports and observed
the notations on the reports relating to Lyons’ conduct and attitude at the time of these
events in June of 2006, we conclude that the reports may have some relevance both
to Lyons’ claims and the defense of those claims. Therefore, we direct the defendants
to provide Lyons with a copy of these DC-17X reports.1
III

ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s request for unredacted copies of Inmate Anthony Boyking’s
Program Review Committee (“PRC”) Reports for the period from
February 2006 through his release from the SMU at SCI-Camp Hill is
DENIED.

1

The defendants may, but are not required to redact from the reports the
names of non-defendant corrections officers in the column listed as “Staff member
Signature”. The defendants are directed to provide a copy of the reports to Lyons
on or before September 21, 2011.
6

2.

On or before Monday, September 21, 2011, Defendants shall provide
the Plaintiff copies of Plaintiff’s DC-17X reports from April 5, 2006 June 21, 2006.The defendants may, but are not required to redact from
thee reports the names of non-defendant corrections officers in the
column listed as “Staff member Signature.”

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

Dated: September 19, 2011

7