Kates v. Packer et al

Filing 245

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry).in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:1.The plaintiffs motion to compel (Doc. 215) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;2.The defendants objections are OVERRULED and the plaintiffs motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories No. 5, 7, and 8;3.Within seven (7) days after the date of this Order, the defendants shall serve the plaintiff with a supplemental answer to Interrogatories No. 5, 7, and 8, providing the requested information as outlined in the accompanying Memorandum;4.Within seven (7) days after service of the defendants supplemental answer to Interrogatories No. 5, 7, and 8, the plaintiff may file a supplemental brief in opposition to summary judgment and a supplemental counter-statement of material facts, strictly limited to facts ascertained from the defendants supplemental answer to Interrogatories No. 5, 7, and 8;5.If the plaintiff opts to file a supplemental br ief in opposition to summary judgment, the defendants may file a reply within seven (7) days after service of the plaintiffs supplemental brief;6.The defendants objections are SUSTAINED in part and the plaintiffs motion to compel is DENIED in part wi th respect to Document Request No. 1, with a ruling on documents regarding investigation of defendant Packer DEFERRED pending the ex parte production of responsive documents concerning the Packer investigation to the Court for in camera inspection; 7 .Within fourteen (14) days after the date of this Order, the defendants shall produce any responsive documents concerning the Packer investigation to the Court for in camera inspection, together with a properly supported memorandum of law and an affi davit or declaration outlining the basis for their position that these documents should be withheld from the plaintiff based on institutional securitythese materials shall be submitted to chambers ex parte as outlined in the accompanying Memorandum; and8.The defendants objections are SUSTAINED and the plaintiffs motion to compel is DENIED with respect to Document Requests No. 3, 4, 5, and 9.Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr on 7/21/17. (ms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID E. KATES,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-01525

v.

(CAPUTO, J.)
(SAPORITO, M.J.)

C.O. ROBERT PACKER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2017, in accordance with the
accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 215) is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part;
2.
plaintiff’s

The defendants’ objections are OVERRULED and the
motion

to

compel

is

GRANTED

with

respect

to

Interrogatories No. 5, 7, and 8;
3.

Within seven (7) days after the date of this Order, the

defendants shall serve the plaintiff with a supplemental answer to
Interrogatories No. 5, 7, and 8, providing the requested information
as outlined in the accompanying Memorandum;
4.

Within seven (7) days after service of the defendants’

supplemental answer to Interrogatories No. 5, 7, and 8, the plaintiff
may file a supplemental brief in opposition to summary judgment and a
supplemental counter-statement of material facts, strictly limited to
facts ascertained from the defendants’ supplemental answer to
Interrogatories No. 5, 7, and 8;
5.

If the plaintiff opts to file a supplemental brief in opposition

to summary judgment, the defendants may file a reply within seven (7)
days after service of the plaintiff’s supplemental brief;
6.

The defendants’ objections are SUSTAINED in part and

the plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED in part with respect to
Document Request No. 1, with a ruling on documents regarding
investigation of defendant Packer DEFERRED pending the ex parte
production of responsive documents concerning the Packer investigation
to the Court for in camera inspection;
7.

Within fourteen (14) days after the date of this Order, the

defendants shall produce any responsive documents concerning the
Packer investigation to the Court for in camera inspection, together
with a properly supported memorandum of law and an affidavit or
declaration outlining the basis for their position that these documents

-2-

should be withheld from the plaintiff based on institutional security—
these materials shall be submitted to chambers ex parte as outlined in
the accompanying Memorandum; and
8.

The defendants’ objections are SUSTAINED and the

plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED with respect to Document
Requests No. 3, 4, 5, and 9.

s/ Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-