Smith v. Donate et al

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS ORDERED as follows: On or before, July 9. 2012, the Defendants shall prepare and provide tothe Plaintiff a form of disclosure of the information in their possession,custody and control relating to instances which occurred bet ween 2001and 2011 in which individual Defendants were disciplined forinfractions involving failure to report the use of excessive force,misconduct relating to the preservation of evidence following inmateassaults, and neglect of duties in matters aff ecting institutional securitylike inmate assaults or escapes. Upon receipt of this information, if thePlaintiff believes that further disclosure are necessary, he shall renew this motion to compel on or before July 23, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on June 6, 2012. (kjn )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALAN SMITH,
Plaintiff
v.
JANINE DONATE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 4:10-CV-2133

(Judge Rambo)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
In this action, Plaintiff Alan Smith, a state inmate who was previously held in
the custody of the Lackawanna County Prison, has sued 14 individuals who were
either employed by, or otherwise provided services to, the prison during the period
Smith was housed at this facility. Plaintiff alleges that these 14 Defendants violated
his constitutional rights by subjecting him to harassment, excessive force, and
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs during his incarceration.
This case now comes before the Court for further consideration of a discovery
dispute. Specifically, Smith had filed a motion to compel the production of various
categories of information including, in particular “documents pertaining to allegations
of misconduct, complaints, grievances, made against the Defendants past and present”
and specifically seeks personnel file information relating to prior excessive force
claims leveled against the Defendants, as well as the entire prison unit log for the

period from November 20, 2008, through January 5, 2009, when he was housed at the
prison.
With respect to these requests, we directed the Defendants to provide to the
Court for its in camera inspection any responsive personnel discipline records, citing
the Defendants for prisoner abuse. Armed with this information the Court could then
determine: (1) whether this information is relevant to the issues raised in this case;
(2) whether it is subject to any valid claim of privilege recognized by the Federal
Rules; and (3) to what extent, in what format, and under what conditions it may be
released to the Plaintiff. We also agreed to conduct an in camera review of the prison
logs requested by Smith in order to address Smith’s concerns that the logs may reveal
additional pertinent information beyond that contained in the log excerpts previously
provided to the Plaintiff. Paluch v. Dawson, No. 06-175, 2008 WL 2785638, *3
(M.D. Pa. July 17, 2008).
Having conducted this review, we find as follows:
First, our examination of the portions of the prison log released to Smith, and
our comparison of those released excerpts against the entirety of the log, confirms
that Smith has been provided all pertinent excerpts from the prison log. Therefore,
this particular request will be DENIED, and the original prison log will be returned
to the defense counsel.
2

Second, with respect to Smith’s request for relevant information from the
Defendants’ personnel files regarding “documents pertaining to allegations of
misconduct, complaints, grievances, made against the Defendants past and present,”
we construed Smith’s request as a request for information of disciplinary findings for
similar or related conduct which might be admissible under Rule 404(b) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence. The scope of discovery permitted by Rule 26 embraces
all “relevant information” a concept which is defined broadly. Thus, “[r]elevant
information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” We further understood
that Smith sought information concerning other claimed episodes of prisoner abuse,
or related misconduct, by the Defendants in order to establish a pattern of behavior
by the Defendants, a pattern that might allow a fact-finder to infer a motive and
intent, and a pattern that would rebut any claim of mistake or innocent error. If this
is the basis for his request, then we concluded that the request might, in fact, “lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.”
With this understanding, we have conducted a review of these personnel
records, and have identified a number of instances which occurred between 2001 and
2011 in which individual Defendants were disciplined for infractions involving
failure to report the use of excessive force, misconduct relating to the preservation of
3

evidence following inmate assaults, and neglect of duties in matters affecting
institutional security like inmate assaults or escapes. While we do not opine on
whether this evidence would ultimately be admissible at any trial, we note that the
scope of discovery is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence, and we find that this
information, relating to instances in which the prison administration found that
individual staff members engaged in this type of misconduct, may “lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence” and, therefore, is properly subject to disclosure in
discovery.
While we make this finding of relevance we are mindful that, to the extent that
litigants seek personnel files in discovery, courts have long recognized that:
Although personnel files are discoverable, they contain confidential
information and discovery of them should be limited. See, e.g., ReaganTouhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 648 (10th Cir.2008) (“Personnel
files often contain sensitive personal information ... and it is not
unreasonable to be cautious about ordering their entire contents
disclosed willy-nilly.... This is not to say personnel files are
categorically out-of-bounds.”); Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112,
115 (E.D.Pa.1994) (“[P]ersonnel files are confidential and discovery
should be limited.”). The Court must weigh the right to relevant
discovery against the privacy interest of non-parties. The Court finds
that Plaintiff is not entitled to the entire personnel records of all the
individuals without a more particularized showing of relevance.
Harris v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Operations, Inc, No. 09-1449, 2010 WL
4683776, *5 (M.D.Pa Nov. 10, 2010). See also Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112,

4

115 (E.D. Pa. 1994)(“personnel files are confidential and discovery should be
limited.”).
Accordingly, in order to permit the Defendants to make properly-tailored
discovery disclosures of this information, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

On or before, July 9. 2012, the Defendants shall prepare and provide to
the Plaintiff a form of disclosure of the information in their possession,
custody and control relating to instances which occurred between 2001
and 2011 in which individual Defendants were disciplined for
infractions involving failure to report the use of excessive force,
misconduct relating to the preservation of evidence following inmate
assaults, and neglect of duties in matters affecting institutional security
like inmate assaults or escapes. Upon receipt of this information, if the
Plaintiff believes that further disclosure are necessary, he shall renew
this motion to compel on or before July 23, 2012.

So ordered this 7th day of June 2012.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
5