The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HAROLD E. LEAPHART, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 23-1062
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
GEORGE LITTLE, et al., ) Re: ECF No. 31
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Harold E. Leaphart (“Plaintiff”), an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Greene (“SCI-Greene”), brings this pro se action arising out of his placement in
restricted custody. ECF No. 4.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Full and Proper Responses to
Discovery (“Motion to Compel”) and Brief in Support. ECF Nos. 31 and 32. Defendants have
filed a Response in Opposition. ECF No. 35. For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel is
granted in part and denied in part.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff was placed in the Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”)
at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon (“SCI-Huntingdon”) on April 20, 2019,
following a staff assault and related misconduct. ECF No. 4 ¶ 20. At the conclusion of the
disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff was sentenced to 255 days in Disciplinary Custody (“DC”) status in
the RHU. He completed this sanction on December 24, 2019. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. Thereafter, Plaintiff
was placed on Administrative Custody (“AC”) status by the Program Review Committee (“PRC”)
at SCI-Huntingdon, was placed on the Restricted Release List (“RRL”) and was housed in “solitary
confinement.” Id. ¶¶ 22-23. He remained in the RHU at SCI-Huntingdon until January 27, 2020.
Id. ¶ 24.
On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff was transferred from SCI-Huntingdon to the State
Correctional Institution at Houtzdale (“SCI-Houtzdale”). There, he was housed in the RHU and
remained in AC status. Id. ¶¶ 24-25.
On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff was transferred from SCI-Houtzdale to SCI-Greene. Upon
his arrival at SCI-Greene, Plaintiff was placed in the RHU in AC status. Id. ¶¶ 25-26.
On or about July 8, 2021, Plaintiff was placed in the Intensive Management Unit (“IMU”),
a new program within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), specifically intended
for inmates on the RRL. Id. ¶¶ 39, 40 and 49. As of that date, Plaintiff had been in solitary
confinement in the RHU for over two years. Id. ¶ 49.
Plaintiff alleges that his RRL status was reviewed in early 2021 and not reviewed again
until May 2022. Id. ¶¶ 71, 78.
Plaintiff initiated this action on June 13, 2023. ECF No. 1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
asserts a denial of due process claim in Count 1. He claims that he has no avenue to challenge his
RRL status through the DOC’s grievance policy and had no opportunity to be heard by DOC
officials. Id. ¶¶ 60-84, 121-127. Plaintiff also asserts a cruel and unusual punishment claim in
Count 2. He claims that the DOC’s policies inflicted cruel and unusual punishment upon him
through the conditions he suffered in solitary confinement. Id. ¶¶ 85-93, 131- 135.
Defendants George Little, Laurel Harry, Tabb Bickell, Tammy Ferguson, Trevor Wingard,
Michael Zaken, S. Buzas, M. Dialesandro, M. Malanowki, M. Switzer, C. Swartz and L-Block
Unit Manager D. Coulehan (collectively, “Defendants”) filed the Answer to Complaint. ECF No.
13. Thereafter, the Court issued a Case Management Order and Amended Case Management
Orders setting deadlines, including for fact discovery. ECF No. 14, 19 and 23.
On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed his initial Motion to Compel Discovery asserting
that Defendants had not responded to his discovery requests. ECF No. 20. Defendants filed
responses. ECF Nos. 25 and 27. Therein, Defendants stated that they mailed the discovery
responses on October 25, 2023, and attached copies of the responses. Id. On November 28, 2023,
the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Given the fact that the
discovery responses were provided but apparently delayed n the DOC mail system, the Motion to
Compel Discovery was denied as moot. ECF No. 28. However, the denial was without prejudice
should Plaintiff seek to compel more complete discovery responses or the production of
documents. Id.
Following review of Defendants’ discovery responses, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel
Full and Proper Responses to Discovery and a Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery
on December 18, 2023. ECF Nos. 31 and 32. On January 5, 2024, Defendants filed a response in
opposition. ECF No. 35.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is now ripe for consideration.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1):
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“Rulings regarding the proper scope of discovery, and the extent to which further discovery
responses may be compelled, are matters committed to the court’s judgment and discretion.”
Simmons v. Gilmore, No. 2:17-cv-00996, 2019 WL 3944325, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2019).
That discretion is limited by Rule 26, which reaches only “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense.” Id. at *2. “Accordingly, ‘[t]he Court’s discretion in ruling on
discovery issues is therefore restricted to valid claims of relevance and privilege.’” Id. (quoting
Robinson v. Folino, No. 14-227, 2016 WL 4678340, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2016)).
As the moving party, Plaintiff “bears the initial burden of showing the relevance of the
requested information.” Id. (quoting Morrison v. Phila Hous. Auth., 203 F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D.
Pa. 2001)). “Once that burden is satisfied, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to
establish that the discovery being sought is not relevant or is otherwise inappropriate.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
In the pending Motion to Compel, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ discovery responses
contain numerous objections and that Defendants failed to supply Plaintiff with complete and
correct discovery responses. ECF No. 32 at 2. Defendants oppose the Motion to Compel. In their
two page response, Defendants simply state that all relevant evidence has been produced and their
discovery responses satisfy their “obligations under the rules.” ECF No. 35 at 2. The Court will
address each request or group of related requests as referenced by Plaintiff in his Brief in Support,
ECF No. 32.
A. Interrogatory No. 1
In this interrogatory, Plaintiff asks Defendants to identify the specific policy or policies
and/or identify a specific directive or custom that indicates that the appeal of
placement/continuation on the RRL is not permitted. ECF No. 35-2 at 1.
Defendants respond.
RESPONSE: There is not a specific DOC policy or section thereof which states that an
inmate may appeal his RRL status. Rather, appeal of AC status is permitted in accordance
with DC-ADM 802, Section 2.C. An inmate may be on RRL on either AC or DC status.
However, removal from RRL must have the written approval of the Executive Deputy
Secretary, in accordance with DC-ADM 802 Section 4.B. By way of further answer, an
inmate could file a Grievance pursuant to ADM-804 to challenge or complain of his or her
placement on the RRL and may obtain the desired relief pursuant to that policy.
Id.
In his Brief, Plaintiff argues that he has “indisputable proof” which shows the above
response is inconsistent with prior statements made by DOC officials, including Defendant Zaken.
ECF No. 32 at 3. Specifically, Plaintiff cites to a number of contrary statements by DOC officials
in response to his grievances. Id.
Upon review, it appears that Defendants have fully responded to this interrogatory. To the
extent that Plaintiff wishes, he may request to depose certain of the identified DOC officials or
Defendants. Furthermore, he may seek to impeach any Defendant or DOC official at trial with
his/her prior inconsistent statements. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is denied as to this
interrogatory.
B. Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6; Document Request Nos. 2 and 3
In these discovery requests, Plaintiff seeks information that he claims is directly related to
his solitary confinement and listing on the RRL. Id. at 4-5. In these interrogatories, Plaintiff seeks
the names of the persons who voted/recommended for his placement/continuation on the RRL; the
“specific rationale word-for word as it appears on the vote sheet/packets”; all material that was
relied on in these decisions and communications before each vote/recommendation. ECF No. 35-
2 at 2-4. In the two document requests, Plaintiff seeks the vote sheets and related materials, as well
as custody, housing, program and misconduct reviews.
In response, Defendants object to these requests because they seek confidential/privileged
information which could jeopardize the security and safety of the DOC personnel, specifically as
it relates to facility security. Id. at 2-4. However, in response to Interrogatory No. 5, Defendants
identify the categories of information generally considered by the decision makers. Id. at 3-4.
Defendants also provide documents as to Plaintiff’s misconducts and redacted PRC Reviews. ECF
No. 35-1 at 2-3.
The gist of the dispute as to these specific discovery requests is that Plaintiff seeks
information and documentation as to the decision makers, vote and vote sheets pertaining to his
placement and continued placement on the RRL. The Court finds, consistent with the decisions
of other courts, that there are legitimate security concerns that preclude the production of this
information and documentation.
Courts with the Third Circuit have declined to compel the production of prison vote sheets
and related information because the release of the information poses a legitimate security concern
for the institution. See Bramble v. Wetzel, 2021WL 5918752, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2021)
(relying on deliberative process privilege and holding legitimate security concerns of DOC
outweigh any relevance that the vote sheets have to inmate’s claims); Naranjo v. T. Walter, 2021
WL 4226062, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2021) (finding that deliberative process privilege applied
and denying a motion to compel vote sheets); Walker v. Regan, 2019 WL 687884, at *3 (E.D. Pa.
Feb. 15, 2019) (declining to compel production of vote sheets because they “are quintessential
examples of documents protected by the deliberative process privilege”); Mearin v. Folino, 2012
WL 4378184, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2012)(denying a motion to compel DC-46 vote sheets
because the vote sheets, and “particularly the names of the staff members who signed them, are
privileged and confidential”).
Consistent with these holdings, the Motion to Compel as to these specific discovery
requests is denied.
C. Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9; Document Request Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9
In these discovery requests, Plaintiff seeks information that he claims is related to the
knowledge of the Defendants concerning the RRL, solitary confinement, and the resulting harmful
effects of solitary confinement. ECF No. 32 at 6-7. Given the broad range of topics covered by
these requests, the Court will address them by topic.
1. Interrogatory Nos. 3 and Document Request No. 6
Plaintiff seeks information as to the knowledge of each named defendant at to the
detrimental effects of long-term solitary confinement. ECF No. 35-2 at 2-3; ECF No. 35-1 at 4.
Defendants object to these requests as overly broad, unduly burdensome and requiring speculation.
Upon review, these two discovery requests are extremely broad and unduly burdensome as
submitted. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel a more detailed response to Interrogatory No. 3
and Document Request No. 6 is denied. However, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to depose an
individual defendant, he may question that deponent about his/her knowledge of the effects of
long-term solitary confinement at the time periods relevant to this litigation.
2. Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 8
Plaintiff seeks information at to other lawsuits filed by other inmates on the RRL relating
to due process and conditions of confinement and the harm that it caused or could potentially
cause. He also seeks information relative court determinations that confinement on the RRL
imposed on a liberty interest and inflicted cruel and unusual punishment. ECF No. 35-2 at 4-5.
Defendants object to these interrogatories.
RESPONSE: This response is OBJECTED to as it is seeking information that is not
relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims, not proportional to the needs, of the case, overly broad
and unduly burdensome.1
Upon review, the Court finds that these two interrogatories are overly broad in time and
scope. The circumstances of each inmate’s confinement and the bases for placement/continued
placement on the RRL are unique and different. The interrogatories also lack specificity as to
institutional location. As such, the Motion to Compel is denied as to these interrogatories.
3. Interrogatory No. 9
Plaintiff seeks the identification of those Defendants that have been deposed or have
otherwise testified under oath, related to any litigation concerning the RRL or solitary
confinement, and provide a summary of the deposition or testimony. Id. at 2.
Defendants object to this interrogatory.
RESPONSE: This response is OBJECTED to as it is seeking information that is not
relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims, not proportional to the needs, of the case, overly broad
and unduly burdensome.
Id. at 5.
Upon review, the Court finds that this objection is without merit, in part. Defendants are
directed to answer Interrogatory No. 9, by identifying by case name, docket number and court
name, as to each case where a named defendant has been deposed relative placement/continuance
on the RRL and related conditions of solitary confinement. The relevant time period for the
inmate/placement on the RRL is January 1, 2018 to present, and is limited to the institutions of
SCI-Huntingdon, SCI-Houtzdale and SCI-Greene.
1 In response to Interrogatory No. 8, Defendants only cite to their response to Interrogatory No. 7. ECF No. 35-2 at
5.
4. Document Request No. 5
In this request, Plaintiff seeks the production of all materials showing complaints made by
prisoners against Defendants and/or the DOC relating to the RRL and the conditions of
confinement. He requests a summary of the information, referencing specific materials available
relating to this request, from which Plaintiff may elect to obtain in part, or in their entirety at a
later date. ECF No. 25-1 at 3.
Defendants object to this document request.
RESPONSE: This request is OBJECTED to as being overly broad and unduly burdensome,
seeks information that is confidential / privileged. Inmates are not entitled to information
regarding other inmates. Furthermore, it is beyond the scope and proportional needs of the
case.
Id. at 4.
The Court finds that this request is overly broad and not limited in time, scope or
institutional location. Further, the reference to conditions of confinement is not defined in nature
or scope. It is not narrowly tailored to the needs of this case. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel
as to this document request is denied.
5. Document Request No. 8
In this document request, Plaintiff seeks the production “all materials relating to solitary
confinement and/or the Restricted Housing Unit, or similar Unit(s)” that has been provided to or
obtained by any of the defendants or the DOC as a whole, from any agency, group, study,
investigation, and/or governmental body. He also states that Defendants may provide a summary
of the material, referencing specific material, referencing specific material available relating to this
request, from which Plaintiff may elect to obtain in part, or entirety at a later date.
Defendants object to this request.
RESPONSE: This request is OBJECTED to as being vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome and beyond the scope of the Plaintiff’s claims and not proportional to the
needs of the case.
Upon review, the Court finds that this request is overly broad in time and scope. It also
lacks specificity as to what is meant by “materials.” Further, it is overbroad in seeking “materials”
relative to solitary confinement or the RHU or similar units. It is not narrowly tailored to the two
claims raised in the Complaint. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is denied as to this request.
6. Document Request No. 9
In this document request, Plaintiff seeks the production of all materials relating to the
training, experience, education, and employment history of each named defendant since the start
of their employment with the DOC. ECF No. 35-1 at 6.
Defendants object to this request but produce identified documents and provide certain
information relative to the employment of each Defendant.
RESPONSE: This requested is OBJECTED to as being overly broad, unduly burdensome,
beyond scope and not preoperational to the needs of the case. Without waiver, see Job
Descriptions: Classification Program Manager attached hereto as LEAPHART_000053
through LEAPHART__000055, Corrections Officer 5 attached hereto as
LEAPHART_000056 through LEAPHART_000058, Deputy Superintendent 2 attached
hereto as LEAPHART_000059 through LEAPHART_000060, Superintendent 2 attached
hereto as LEAPHART_000274 through LEAPHART_000275, Unit Manager attached
hereto as LEAPHART_000276 through LEAPHART_000277, Regional Deputy Secretary
– Redacted attached hereto as LEAPHART_000271 through LEAPHART_000273. The
positions of Secretary, Acting Secretary and Executive Deputy Secretary are appointed
positions and therefore do not have official job descriptions. Furthermore, below is a list
of the Defendants employment dates.
• Former Acting Secretary George Little – 10/02/2021 – 01/18/2023
• Secretary Laurel Harry – 01/17/2023 – 06/21/2023 (Acting Secretary); 06/22/2023 –
Current (Secretary)
• Former Executive Deputy Secretary Tabb Bickell – 02/06/2018 – 03/31/2023
• Executive Deputy Secretary Tammy Ferguson – 04/09/2023 – Current
• Former Regional Deputy Secretary Trevor Wingard – 07/29/2018 – 06/24/2022
• Superintendent Michael Zaken 3/22/2020 – Current
• Deputy Superintendent Michael Dialesandro 8/3/2014 – Current
• Deputy Superintendent Martin Switzer 5/14/2023 – Current
• Deputy Superintendent Stephen Buzas 5/17/2020 – Current
• Major Maureen Malanoski 9/20/2020 – Current
• Unit Manager Daniel Coulehan 9/6/2020 – Current
• Corrections Classifications Program Manager Carla Swartz 4/4/2021 - Current
Id.
Upon review, the Court finds that this response is sufficient. Plaintiff has not established
the relevance of his broad request for documentation as to each defendant’s education and general
training. As such, the Motion to Compel as to this document request is denied.
D. Document Request No. 4
In this document request, Plaintiff seeks the production of all materials related to his mental
and physical health from his reception into DOC custody until the present. ECF No. 35-1 at 3.2
Defendants provide a one sentence objection to this request as “overly broad, unduly
burdensome, beyond the scope of Plaintiff’s claims and seeks confidential/privileged
information.” Without waiver of this objection, Defendants produced 200 pages of Plaintiff’s
medical records. Id.
In support of his Motion to Compel as to this request, Plaintiff argues that his mental health
records are relevant to his claims in this case because a substantial portion of those claims relate
to the effects of solitary confinement on his mental health. Further, Plaintiff argues that the is no
confidentiality or privilege that attaches to his request for his own mental health records. ECF No.
32 at 7-8.
In considering Defendants’ objection, the Court recognizes that courts in the Third Circuit
have treated similar objections as assertions of privilege and recognized their legitimacy. Courts
have also recognized the potential security risk to staff posed by the release of an inmate’s mental
2 On May 20, 2002, Plaintiff was sentenced to 26 to 60 years in prison by the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana
County. Leaphart v. Palakovich, Case No. 07-465 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2007) (ECF No. 1). Therefore, it appears that
Plaintiff has been in the custody of the DOC for over 20 years.
health records. The Court finds the decision of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Richard
Lanzillo in Preacher v. Correct Care Solutions, 2020 WL 7027837, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2020)
to be instructive.
Defendants have objected to these requests on the grounds that they seek “confidential,
subjective mental health information pertaining to the assessment and treatment of
Plaintiff” and that “[r]elease of this information to Plaintiff may pose a security risk to staff
and/or the institution.” Treating similar objections as assertions of privilege, courts in this
circuit have recognized their legitimacy. See Mearin v. Folino, 2012 WL 4378184, at *4
(W.D. Pa. Sept 24, 2012); Mercaldo v. Wetzel, 2016 WL 5851958, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 6,
2016); Spencer v. Collins, 2013 WL 5176747, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2013); Brown v.
Martinez, 2006 WL 1646154, at *, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29772, at *6–9 (M.D. Pa. May
12, 2006); Mincy v. Chmielewski, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77595, at *5–8, 2006 WL
3042968, at *1–2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2006); Griffin-El v. Beard, 2009 WL 678700, at *8
(E.D. Pa. Mat. 16, 2009), order corrected on reconsideration, 2009 WL 1229599 (E.D. Pa.
Apr. 30, 2009); Whetstone v. Bohinski, 2010 WL 785246, at *2–3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3,
2010), modified on reconsideration, 2010 WL 1505906 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2010).
In Mearin, an inmate plaintiff sought mental health records to which the defendant objected
on the grounds that the information was privileged, confidential, and sensitive. 2012 WL
4378184, at *4. The defendant asserted that “allowing an inmate to be privy to his mental
health records could permit the inmate to manipulate his treatment and frustrate the goals
of his treatment by interfering with a candid analysis of the inmate. Moreover, divulging
an inmate's mental health records would subject any staff member involved in Plaintiff's
treatment to retaliation.” Id. There, the Court declined to order production of the records,
in part persuaded by the defendant's reasoning, but also because the plaintiff's requests
were overbroad and largely irrelevant to his claims. Id. at *5.
Similarly, in Huertas v. Beard, 2012 WL 3096430 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 30, 2012), the Court
declined to grant an inmate plaintiff's motion to compel production of psychological
records because the plaintiff's complaints of decreased vision, eye pain, headaches and
photophobia were not sufficiently relevant and “unpersuasive in light of the security
concerns asserted by Defendants.” 2012 WL 3096430 at *9. See also Spencer, 2013 WL
5176747, at *2 (inmate's motion to compel production of his psychiatric records denied
because defendants’ security concerns were “justified,” and plaintiff was not challenging
his mental health treatment).
The security concerns underlying such objections seem particularly weighty when the
psychological records requested relate to officials’ assessments of whether a prisoner
presents a security or mental health risk requiring his placement in a special housing unit.
At the same time, many courts confronting such objections have required in
camera production and review of the requested records in order to scrutinize and weigh
the relevance of the records against the security concerns raised by the defendants. In
camera review is particularly appropriate where mental health records are relevant to the
plaintiff's claim and a correctional defendants wholesale decline to produce those records
on the basis of confidentiality or security. The Court adopted this approach in Griffin-El
v. Beard. There, the Court followed the reasoning of both Brown and Mincy in order to
come up with an arrangement where the Department of Corrections would produce a
privilege log and supporting documentation to the Court, which would then proceed to
“[weigh] the asserted security concerns against the relevance of the documents to
Plaintiff's claims” via in camera review. Id. at *8-9 (citing Brown, 2006 WL 1646154, at
*, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29772, at *6–9; Mincy, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77595, at *5–8,
2006 WL 3042968, at *. In Brown, the Court ordered in camera review of psychological
records in dispute between an inmate plaintiff and defendants. 2006 WL 1646154, at *,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29772, at *4. After that review, Chief Judge Vanaskie granted the
defendants’ motion for protective order, deeming the documents irrelevant to plaintiff's
claims in relation to the defendants’ documented security concerns. Id. at *, 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 29772, at *9, 2006 WL 1646154.
Consistent with decision of Judge Lanzillo in Preacher, the Court finds that an approach
like that followed by the courts in Brown and Mincy is appropriate in this case. Defendants will
be ordered to produce Plaintiff’s mental health records to the Court for in-camera review, on or
before February 7, 2024. Defendants’ production of this records is limited to the time period of
January 1, 2018 to present. Upon receipt, the Court will review these records and weigh their
potential relevance against the confidentiality concerns raised by Defendants and the security
considerations recognized by the Court. The Court will determine to what extent, if any, the mental
health records are subject to production to Plaintiff.
E. Document Request No. 7
In this request, Plaintiff seeks the production all materials relating to the operation, control,
facilitation, etc. of the RHU, Intensive Management Unit, Long Term Segregation Unit,
Administrative Custody, and the RRL. This includes polices, directives, customs (if no written
material exists, provide a detailed summary), supplemental material, and program material. ECF
No. 35-1 at 4.
Defendants object, in part, to the request.
RESPONSE: This request is OBJECTED to as being overly broad and unduly burdensome,
seeks confidential/ privileged information which could jeopardize the security and safety
of the DOC personnel, specifically as it pertains to the facility security. Furthermore, DOC
policies are available on www.cor.pa.gov. Plaintiff may appropriately schedule library time
in order to view these policies. Or, in the alternative, he may request to view a copy of
these policies from his Unit Manager. Copies may be made at Plaintiff’s expense, in
accordance with DC-003 Release of Information.
Id.
At the outset, in review of this response, it is noted that Defendants failed to identify the
publicly available policies that are responsive to Plaintiff’s request. As such, Defendants are
directed to supplement this response and identify all relevant publicly available policies. The
supplemental response must be provided within 14 days of the date of this Order. Further,
Defendants are directed to produce copies of each of the identified relevant publicly available
policies to Plaintiff within 14 days of the date of this Order without charge.
Following receipt of the supplement response and copies of the policies, Plaintiff may
move to compel and additional policies that were not provided. However, Plaintiff is cautioned
that policies that relate to internal institutional security may not be discoverable.
F. Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11; Document Request No. 1
In Interrogatory No. 10, Plaintiff requests that Defendants identify all witnesses and expert
witnesses that they intend to call at time of trial. ECF No. 35-2 at 5. This request is premature as
the time frame for listing of witnesses for trial will be addressed in the Court’s pretrial scheduling
order. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel as to this interrogatory is denied.
In Interrogatory No. 11 and Document Request No. 1, Plaintiff request that Defendants
state the evidentiary basis upon which it intends to defend against Plaintiff’s claims and he seeks
the production of related materials. Id. at 6; ECF No. 35-1 at 1. Again, this request is premature
as the time frame for the listing and production of exhibits will be addressed in the Court’s pretrial
scheduling order. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel as to these two discovery requests is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. An
appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2024, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Full and Proper Responses to Discovery, ECF No. 31, is granted in part and
denied in part.
The Motion to Compel is granted to the extent that Defendants are directed to:
A. Answer Interrogatory No. 9 as modified;
B. Produce to the Court, for in-camera review, Plaintiff’s mental health records for the
time period January 1, 2018 to present; and
C. Answer Document Request No. 7 and produce the identified documents at no cost to
Plaintiff.
The discovery responses must be provided to Plaintiff by February 7, 2024. The mental health
records must be produced to the Court for in-camera review by February 7, 2024.
The Motion to Compel is denied in all other respects.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of
the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to
file an appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any appeal
is to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any appellate
rights.
BY THE COURT:
/s Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: All counsel of record via CM/ECF.
HAROLD E. LEAPHART
EZ8537
SCI Greene
169 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370