Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

1
Case 1:06-cv-00263—GI\/IS-I\/IPT Doc nt 81 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 013
•{F£'ST4I"€.
fi t
lit

T
cnnunm mvnsnou mz; svmsoo
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE r=Ax (302) srv-me
.rcsEPH R. BMJEN. Mr a¤"N%“F§$Sil‘éifé3‘t”%-EEE? °'“*L§’A»“J?§€£l it-%€L§§§‘“°°
Awonnsv cement wunmcrou, DELAWARE mm 1-mm) svw-m:.». i
I
October 23, 2007
l
1
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
U.S. District Court
844 N. King Street
Lock Box 8 I
Wilmington, DE 19801 r
RE: Sminkey v. DOC, ct al., , C.A. No. 06-263*** i
Dear Judge Thynge: -
Please allow this to serve as defendants’ discovery dispute letter that is
responsive to plaintiffs motion to compel discovery. (D.I. 77) By the Court’s
Order, plaintiffs motion is to be treated as a discovery dispute letter in keeping
with the Scheduling Order. (D,I. 79)
Defendants contend that due to the page limitations on discovery letters and
the requirements of judicial economy, it may be beneficial to all parties to have the
Court provide general guidance on the scope of discovery, and then the parties will
be directed to meet and confer on the outstanding disputes. To place all these
issues in the proper context, a brief description of this lawsuit may be helpful. .
Plaintiff was hired as a probationary employee by the Department of
Correction ["DOC’] for training as a Probation and Parole Officer ["P&P
Ofticer"]. As the Court is aware, P & P Officers are armed law enforcement
officers with the full powers of arrest and work under the direction of the state =
courts. Plaintiff started his Cadet training on February 25, 2005. On April 28,
2005, following a number of Behavioral Assessment Meetings and Reports by the
training staff, plaintiffs employment with the DOC was terminated. Plaintiff
subsequently filed suit claiming employment discrimination and some contract .
claims.
Thus far defendants have responded to two sets of discovery. Defendants _
have produced more than 800 pages of documents and hundreds more
electronically in the form of CDs. Specifically, defendants have produced the ;
- 1 -


Case 1:06-cv-00263—GI\/IS-I\/IPT Document 81 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 3

entire personnel file maintained by the DOC on plaintiff, including the background
investigation. Defendants have produced the minutes of the BAC committee
meeting and the BAC reports. Additionally, defendants have produced at
plaintiff' s request hundreds of pages of documents that are completely irrelevant.
With the above issues in mind, defendants believe that the following areas
are beyond the scope of Rule 26 (absent a specific factual showing):
(a) The abduction and sexual assault of DOC employee by an offender
in July 2004;
(b) The alleged personnel problems within the Delaware State Police;
(c) The potential personal assets of the individual defendants at this {
stage of litigation;
(d) The individual defendant’s family and medical history including I
medicines prescribed for them;
(e) Personal information on named defendants that did not actually ·
participate in any alleged wrongful conduct or whose participation was minimal
such as signing a letter;
(f) The criminal or traffic violation history of individual defendants,
other than felonies and crimes of dishonesty for purposes of credibility which may
be asked at deposition; 2
E E - . E . I . • ]• ¤ 1 I 1. ME ]
Crimes, Wrongs or Acts" must be limited as set out in FRE 404(b); and,
(h) Any information regarding inmates within the custody of or other
employees (not involved in plaintiffs training class) of the DOC.
Defendants believe that if the Court could provide guidance on the general
scope of discovery, the parties can ‘meet and confer’ regarding specific discovery
issues. If during the meet and confer session, plaintiff can provide counsel with
reasons why a particular issue that appears to beyond the scope of discovery is ,
discoverable in this case, counsel could resolve the dispute. Additionally, the
Court’s general guidance and the subsequent ‘meet and confers’ by the parties will ¢
allow both sides to adjust and refine their understanding of the issues and
potentially lead to streamlining of the case.
- 2 - A

Case 1:06-cv-00263—GI\/IS-I\/IPT Document 81 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 3 of 3 1
Defendants thank the Court for its patience and look fotward towards 1
resolving the issues.
}
3
Respectfully submitted,
1
/s/ Marc P. Niedzielski
Deputy Attorney General
1
1
1
Cc: Jack E. Sminkey (via e—mail) 1

1
1
- 3 -