BRACEY v. PRICE et al
Filing
75
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion to Compel Discovery; denying 70 Motion to Compel Discovery; denying 70 Motion Toll Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 03/13/2012. (ndf ) A copy of the Opinion and Order is being forwarded this day to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail to his address of record.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COREY BRACEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LIEUTENANT PRICE; DAN DAVIS;
EAGLE, Correctional Officer I,
CAPTAIN WORKMAN;
CAPTAIN LEGGET; BITTNER,
Correctional Officer II;
LIEUTENANT LESURE; ANDERSON,
Correctional Officer II; KERRI CROSS;
DEPUTY GATES; BRAUNLICH,
Correctional Officer II; MELISSA
VARNER; MACINTYRE; JEFFREY
BEARD, Pa Department of Corrections;
BRIAN COLEMAN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 09-1662
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
)
)
)
)
) [ECF Nos. 68 and 70]
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
MAUREEN P. KELLY, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Corey Bracey, a state inmate currently housed in the custody of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield (“SCISmithfield”), has filed this action against 16 DOC officials and employees for alleged violations
of his rights under the United States Constitution and Pennsylvania law. Following this Court’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2011, [ECF No. 50], ruling on Defendants’
Partial Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s remaining claims are: the alleged unconstitutional
conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement in an unsanitary cell located in the Restricted Housing Unit
(“RHU”) at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette (“SCI-Fayette”), alleged acts of
retaliation after the filing of grievances regarding past alleged sexual harassment in violation of
1
Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and a state tort claim of conversion arising out of the
confiscation of some on Plaintiff’s property.
Presently before this Court are two motions to compel filed by Plaintiff. In the first
Motion to Compel, ECF No. 68, Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of (1) personnel
records of Defendants Bittner, Lesure and Leggett to establish that they are of “bad character”
[ECF No. 69, p.4]; (2) Defendant Cross’s statistical record as a grievance hearing examiner to
establish that she has “an inherent bias towards prisoners” which will purportedly explain why
Plaintiff has been found guilty of misconduct charges; (3) the history of sexual harassment
charges filed at SCI-Greene for the years 2005-2007; (4) security procedure manuals; (5)
Plaintiff’s previously confiscated property; (6) Plaintiff’s “Cumulative Adjustment Records” and
confidential inmate history files; and, (7) DOC housing logs for SCI-Fayette to support his
assertion that he could have been housed in a different cell upon his initial transfer from SCIGreene.
In the second motion, captioned “Motion to Compel Discovery and to Toll Discovery
Deadlines,” ECF No. 70, Plaintiff seeks sanctions and to compel the production of interrogatory
responses from Defendant Beard, the retired Pennsylvania Secretary to the Department of
Corrections.
Defendants have responded to both motions. As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel at ECF
No. 69, Defendants have responded that the discovery sought is irrelevant and overly broad or is
privileged for valid security reasons. Having reviewed all of the filings of the respective parties
as to this Motion to Compel, for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel at
ECF No. 68 will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Discovery at ECF No. 70, it is noted the requested responses from Secretary Beard have
2
been provided to the Plaintiff. [ECF No. 72, ¶ 2]. Because the delay was reasonable, predicated
upon Secretary Beard’s retirement, and because Plaintiff has not been prejudiced in any way by
the delay, the Motion to Compel at ECF No. 70 is DENIED as moot.
III.
DISCUSSION
The scope of discovery is defined by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides as follows:
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense—including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other
tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any
discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need
not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations
imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Rulings regarding the proper scope of discovery, and the extent to which discovery may
be compelled, are matters consigned to the court's discretion and judgment. It has long been held
that decisions relating to the scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26 also rest in the sound
discretion of the Court. Wisniewski v. Johns–Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987).
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 restrict the court's discretion in ruling on discovery issues.
Furthermore, the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 26 embraces all “relevant information,” a
3
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).
A. Personnel/Disciplinary Records of Defendants Bittner, Lesure and Leggett
To the extent that litigants seek disciplinary information contained in personnel files
through the discovery process, courts have long recognized that:
Although personnel files are discoverable, they contain confidential information
and discovery of them should be limited. See, e.g., Reagan–Touhy 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.”).
Smith v. Donate, No. 10-2133, 2011 WL 5593160 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2011), quoting, Harris v.
Harley–Davidson Motor Co. Operations, Inc., No. 09–1449, 2010 WL 4683776, *5 (M.D.Pa.
Nov.10, 2010); and, Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 115 (E.D.Pa.1994) (“personnel files
are confidential and discovery should be limited.”).
4
Here, Plaintiff contends that the records of Defendants’ past disciplinary proceedings
may result in evidence regarding Defendants’ honesty or may lead to other evidence that the
Defendants are predisposed against prisoners. ECF Nos. 69, ¶ 69, 73, ¶¶ 2, 3. Neither of these
two broad assertions meets the burden initially placed on the Plaintiff to prove the relevance of
the request for information. Morrison v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 203 F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D.
Pa. 2001). Plaintiff fails to specifically assert or demonstrate the “particularized relevance” of
any of the categories of records sought. While courts are reluctant to broadly prohibit discovery,
given the breadth of these discovery requests, which may implicate records having no bearing on
any claim asserted, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Bittner, Lesure and Legett’s
Disciplinary Records is DENIED. Paluch v. Dawson, No. 06-01751, 2007 WL 4375937 (M.D.
Pa. Dec. 12, 2007).
B. Defendant Cross’s Statistics as a Grievance Hearing Examiner
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Cross’s “statistical history of guilty pleas versus not
guilty pleas, and how many prisoners she subsequently found guilty….” [ECF No. 69, p. 5].
This request is not limited in any way with regard to the context of the facts in which the
findings were made and accordingly has no rational bearing on Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Cross. Given the marginal relevance of the information sought, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Defendant Cross’s hearing statistics is DENIED.
C. Defendant Price: Sexual Harassment Claims from 2005-2007
As correctly indicated by Defendants, Plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim has been
dismissed from this action and as such, documents related to sexual harassment claims filed by
other inmates in the time period 2005-2007 are irrelevant. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel this
information is DENIED.
5
D. Defendant Gates: Security Procedures
Plaintiff seeks the production of security procedures set forth at 6.5.1 and 6.3.1 of the
DOC Procedure Manuals. The manuals lay out in detail how the highest level security units
within the DOC, including the RHU, are run. Allowing Plaintiff access to such information
would obviously create a substantial security risk. See Paluch v. Dawson, 2007 WL 4375937 at
*5 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2007). As such, the Motion to Compel is DENIED with respect to these
requests.
Plaintiff also seeks, through Defendant Gates, the production of “investigatory reports
filed and/or conducted against Defendant Bittner.” As indicated infra, Plaintiff has failed to
make a particularized showing of relevance as to these records and, accordingly, Plaintiff has not
met his initial burden to justify the production of these records. Plaintiff’s perfunctory assertion
that the records would show Bittner’s “lack of credibility and general pre-disposition to
prisoners” is simply not sufficient to order the disclosure of confidential records. Miles v.
Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 115 (E.D.Pa.1994) (“personnel files are confidential and discovery
should be limited.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Bittner’s personnel
records through Defendant Gates is DENIED.
Plaintiff also seeks to compel his “Cumulative Adjustment Record” and DC-17X forms
for the period 2007 through 2010. These documents evidently contain “personal observations
and interactions by unit managers, counselors, mental health professionals, and other DOC staff
of the inmate wherein, amongst other things, plans on how to proceed with the inmate are
included. The DC-15 contains a wealth of the same type of information.” [ECF No. 71, ¶ 11].
Defendants object to the production of these documents noting the security risk presented to staff
of potential retaliation and possible manipulation of the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement.
6
Plaintiff contends the information is relevant to “show Plaintiff is not problematic” as he is made
out to be by Defendants. [ECF No. 69, p.7].
Similar documents, albeit subject to substantial redaction of confidential information,
have previously been produced by the DOC in prisoner civil rights litigation. See, e.g, Paluch v.
Dawson, No. 06-1751, 2008 WL 2785638 (M.D. Pa. 2008). The security issues associated with
blanket production of these reports are well-founded. Accordingly, to the extent that the
documents can be redacted to eliminate all confidential and/or privileged security-related
information, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED and Defendants are directed to respond
to Plaintiff’s request within thirty (30) days of the date of this Opinion and Order.
E. DOC: SCI-Fayette Housing Log
Plaintiff seeks the SCI-Fayette Housing Log for J and L Blocks for the period December
4, 2008 through January 5, 2009, to show that he could have been housed in a cell without an incell camera. Defendants have responded that this information does not exist in the form
requested, as housing records are kept by inmate, not by cell. The burden of determining which
inmates were housed on the indicated cell blocks for the relevant time frame, to determine which
cells, if any, were not occupied, far outweighs any marginal relevance of the requested
information, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Housing Log is DENIED.
7
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, with the exception of the redacted copies of Plaintiff’s DC-17x
and DC-15 reports, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel [ECF Nos 68 and 70] are denied. An
appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motions to
Compel at ECF Nos. 68 and 70, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Motion to Compel [ECF No. 68] is GRANTED in part only to the extent
Defendants are to produce copies of Plaintiff’s 17x and DC 15 Reports, as redacted to remove all
confidential and/or privileged security-related information bearing upon any DOC employee’s
impressions, personal observation and interactions, as well as information regarding DOC’s
placement and behavior modification plans with regard to the inmate at issue. The redacted
reports are to be produced to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of this Order. In all other respects,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel at ECF No. 68 is DENIED.
2. The Motion to Compel Discovery [ECF No. 70] is DENIED as moot.
BY THE COURT,
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc:
Corey Bracey
GS-4754
SCI Smithfield
Box 999, 1120 Pike Street
Huntingdon, PA 16652
All counsel of record via CM/ECF
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?