Johnson v. Wetzel, 081016 PAMDC, 1:16-CV-863

Docket Nº:Civil Action 1:16-CV-863
Opinion Judge:Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge.
Party Name:ARTHUR JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. JOHN WETZEL, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants
Case Date:August 10, 2016
Court:United States District Courts, 3th Circuit, 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

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 10, 2016

ORDER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge.

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP