Opinion
Civil Action 2:09-cv-517.
August 17, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on plaintiff Scott Kelly Hansen's July 16, 2009 motion for an order by the U.S. District Court for the production of classified U.S. Government threat assessments (doc. 4).
Plaintiff seeks an order for the production of two classified threat assessments from 1994 and 1997 for in camera review by the Court. Plaintiff maintains that the threat assessments will show that he will be put in great risk of serious harm or death if he returns to Ohio. The 1994 threat assessment resulted in plaintiff being placed in a prisoner-witness protection unit based on testimony that he gave on behalf of the State of Ohio in a death penalty murder trial and before a federal grand jury. The 1997 threat assessment was made following plaintiff's 1996 testimony as a witness for the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. At that time, plaintiff was placed in the Federal Witness Security Program administered by the U.S. Marshal Service.
Plaintiff maintains that although he is no longer in the witness security program, he continues to face danger for the testimony he provided. Plaintiff contends that in 2005 he had to be removed from the Federal Bureau of Prisons and housed under contract with the State of Minnesota because of the ongoing threat to his safety. Plaintiff acknowledges that he has asked for the production of documents early in these proceedings, but he maintains that the coordinating the production of the documents will take some time.
Defendant opposes plaintiff's motion on the basis that it is premature and requests that this Court stay any decision regarding plaintiff's motion until the Court has had an opportunity to rule on defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff further contends that because some of the information may be sensitive and confidential, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should be provided with an opportunity to respond to plaintiff's motion.
Scott Kelly Hansen's July 16, 2009 motion for an order by the U.S. District Court for the production of classified U.S. Government threat assessments (doc. 4) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will stay any decision regarding plaintiff's motion until the Court has had an opportunity to rule on defendant's motion to dismiss. Because the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and be construed most favorably toward the non-movant, the Court will accept the allegations that plaintiff faces danger if he is forced to return to Ohio.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., and Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within ten (10) days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the Order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.