Reported / Citable
Background
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking an order requiring the defendants to disclose the locations of temperature and humidity data-monitoring devices installed at the Wallace Pack Unit on August 27, 2014.
As alternative relief, the plaintiffs asked the court to review the monitors’ locations in camera. The defendants did not object to that alternative.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered the defendants to submit information about the monitors for in camera review by September 23, 2014. The required submission included descriptions of each monitor’s location and copies of any photographs taken when the monitors were installed or afterward.
The defendants also had to identify everyone who had accessed each monitor during its 30-day data-recording period and everyone who knew the monitors’ locations. For those individuals, the defendants could provide either names or descriptions of their professional relationships to the prison or the litigation.
Key Takeaways
- The court adopted the plaintiffs’ requested alternative of in camera review.
- The ordered disclosure covered monitor locations, access, photographs, and knowledge of the locations.
- The information was due to the court by September 23, 2014.
Why It Matters
The order gave the court direct access to information needed to evaluate where the prison’s temperature and humidity data were being collected and who could access or locate the monitoring devices.
The ruling was limited to requiring an in camera submission; it did not order immediate disclosure of the information to the plaintiffs.