Opinion
1:20-CV-00368-SPB
03-17-2022
ANTHONY DEFRANCO, Plaintiff, v. OFC. ASHLEY MILLER, SGT. MATTHEW PUTMAN, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; OFC. BRANDON WISE, BRYAN FLINCHBAUGH, LIEUTENANT JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, Defendants,
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ECF NO. 38
RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Anthony DeFranco has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this Court's prior order denying his motion that counsel for the Defendants, the Office of Pennsylvania Attorney General, be directed to mail responses to discovery requests and other correspondence, to him directly at the place of DeFranco's incarceration. See ECF No. 37. As a basis for his motion for reconsideration, DeFranco calls the Court's attention to a provision of the Department of Corrections' mail policy, DC-ADM 803, which states that
Incoming privileged correspondence delivered through the postal or mail delivery system must possess a Department issued [attorney control number or court control number]. An attorney, a court, or an elected or appointed federal state, or local official or other approved entity may request an ANC/CCN/MCN though the Pennsylvania Department of Correction's website.See ECF No. 38-1, p. 3 (copy of DC-ADM 803). DeFranco argues that because counsel for the Defendants, Phillip E. Raymond, is a Deputy Attorney General working in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, he is an "appointed state government official," and, as such, could 1 obtain an Attorney Control Number for use in direct mailing. See ECF No. 38, fflf 5-6. Although a correct statement of counsel's employment status, that status alone does not provide a basis for reconsideration because the DOC control number policy only applies to privileged communication. Communication from defense counsel to DeFranco is not privileged. Indeed, this Court has specifically held that "[correspondence from defense counsel is not privileged and therefore, does not fall within the guidelines of the DOC policy relating to the handling of mail from an attorney to an inmate who he or she is representing." McLaughlin v. Zavada, 2019 WL 5697347, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2019). Thus, DeFranco's motion for reconsideration is DENIED as he has failed to allege an intervening change in the law, the availability of new evidence, or a clear error of law. See Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
However, the Court notes DeFranco's statement that he "has sent Defense counsel 4 requests for the production of documents, 2 sets of interrogatories for Defendant Flinchbaugh and one set for every other defendant" but has not received anything in response as of March 12, 2022. Given this, the Court now ORDERS Counsel for the Defendants to update the Court via a written status report on the progress made toward satisfying these discovery requests. The written status report is to be filed within ten days of the date of this order and served on the Plaintiff. 2