Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Whitaker v. Springettsbury Township

April 19, 2010

RONALD T. WHITAKER, SR., ET AL. PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

Magistrate Judge Carlson

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. Statement of Facts and of the Case

This is a civil rights action brought by Ronald T. Whitaker, Sr. and Dalea Lynn, arising out of the July 7, 2007 fatal shooting of Ronald T. Whitaker, Jr., at the Springettsbury Township Police Department. As detailed in the report and recommendation filed by the Court, that shooting occurred in the course of a violent assault by Whitaker on a Springettsbury Township Police Officer. The background of this tragic incident is thoroughly detailed in the report and recommendation filed by this court, a report and recommendation which recommends that the District Court find that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment in this case. That report and recommendation notes, in part, that this assault, and Whitaker's death, were captured on a police video tape which is part of the discovery material in this case.

In this separate opinion and order we are addressing competing motions relating to this video tape, which is part of the discovery material amassed in this case. These motions include a pro se motion filed by a member of the news media seeking access to this video (Doc. 77), as well as a motion for protective order filed by the defendants, which requests that the video remain under seal at present. (Doc. 79).These motions have been fully briefed (Docs. 82 and 84) and are now ripe for resolution.

For the reasons set forth below, at this time we will grant the defendants' motion for protective order (Doc. 79), and deny the motion for access to this video tape.

II. Discussion

The competing motions filed in this case call upon the Court to strike the appropriate balance between three separate interests: First, we must consider the understandable and compelling privacy interests of the parties, who found themselves tied by twists of fate to a fatal shooting, and whose privacy rights could be profoundly affected by the dissemination of the video depicting this incident. Second, we must assess the interests of the litigants, the courts and the public in a fair trial, should there be a trial in this case, a trial which is unaffected by the powerfully prejudicial impact might result from premature dissemination of a this video. Finally, we must weigh the media and public interest in the release of this information in a case of some public interest.

These competing motions also call upon the Court to exercise its authority under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to regulate discovery in this case. Issues relating to the scope of discovery permitted under the Rules rest in the sound discretion of the Court. Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). A court's decisions regarding the conduct of discovery will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983).

That discretion is guided, however, by certain basic principles. Thus, under Rule 26, this Court has the authority to enter orders limiting discovery, including orders which limit non-party access to discovery materials in pending cases. See Rule 26(c)(1)(A)-(H), F. R. Civ. P. Non-parties, like media representatives, who seek to gain access to discovery materials in a pending civil lawsuit must, in turn, file a motion to intervene under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and comply with the requirements of that Rule before their requests should be entertained. See, Littlejohn v. BIC Corporation, 851 F.2d 673, 675 (3d. Cir. 1988), see also, Moore's Federal Practice 3d, § 26.102[2], n.7(2009 ed.)(collecting cases).

Furthermore, any third party request for access to this type of material must also meet the substantive legal standards which govern this type of third-party access to discovery materials. Those substantive standards begin with the familiar proposition that, while "courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents... the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute [, and]... [e]very court has supervisory power over its own records and files." Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (U.S. 1978). Recognizing the Court's broad supervisory power in this field, it has been held that "the decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case." Id. at 599. Moreover, when exercising this discretion, we are guided by the considerations cited in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) which provides that "[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

"Good cause" justifying restricting third party media access to discovery materials "is established when it is specifically demonstrated that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury. Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples... will not suffice." Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995)(citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994)). Instead, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has established a list of factors courts should consider in exercising this discretion and determining whether a release of specific materials is appropriate:

(1) the interest in privacy of the party seeking protection;

(2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.