United States District Court, D. Delaware
THEODORE BARRETT, et al. Plaintiffs,
LAWRENCE McDONALD MD, et al. Defendants.
LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are Movant Stanley Yelardy's Motion for Permissive Joinder, Motion to Seal, and Motion for Expedited Ruling. (D.I. 16; D.I. 32; D.I. 51) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Yelardy's Motion for Permissive Joinder, grant Yelardy's Motion to Seal, and deny as moot his Motion for Expedited Ruling.
On May 9, 2014, Plaintiffs Theodore Barrett, Ronald Keis, Wilbur Medley, Victor Talmo, Raymond Brown, Gene Schultz, David DeJesus, Derrick Jackson, and Joseph Vincent filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County alleging various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 3) Each claim arises out of alleged sexual abuse by Defendant Lawrence McDonald during medical examinations of the Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs were inmates at Sussex Correctional Institution ("SCI"). (D.I. 1, ex. 1 at¶ 1) The original complaint named six Defendants: McDonald, Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS"), Jill Mosser, G.R. Johnson, Linda Valentino, and Lamont Hammond. ( Id. ) On June 13, Defendants Mosser and CCS removed the action to this Court. (D.I. 1)
On July 31, 2014, Movant Stanley Yelardy filed a Motion for Permissive Joinder, seeking to join this suit. (D.I. 16) Yelardy alleges sexual abuse by McDonald during medical examinations in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ( Id. at¶ 1) Unlike the Plaintiffs, however, Yelardy was not an inmate at SCI during the alleged abuse; he was incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center ("JTVCC"). ( Id. ) The claim Yelardy seeks to press would be against three or four of the Defendants in the instant action - McDonald, Mosser, and CCS, and possibly G.R. Johnson - but would also add four new Defendants who are not part of the instant action (at least Perry Phelps, the warden at JTVCC, and three defendants who are identified only by their roles at JTVCC: the Health Services Administrator, the deputy warden who oversaw medical, and the major who oversaw medical). ( Id. at ¶¶ 8-9) Yelardy's motion is opposed by Defendants Johnson, Valentino, and Hammond. (D.I. 19) Plaintiffs take no position. (D.I. 18)
On August 11, 2014, after Yelardy had filed his Motion for Permissive Joinder, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (D.I. 20) This Amended Complaint added thirteen additional Plaintiffs and five additional Defendants. (D.I. 14) Each of the additional Plaintiffs, like the original Plaintiffs, claimed sexual abuse by McDonald during medical examinations while they were inmates at SCI. ( Id. at ¶¶ 15-27) All of the claims against the additional Defendants also arose out of acts allegedly occurring at SCI. ( See generally id. at ¶¶ 290-321)
On October 8, 2014, Yelardy filed a Supplemental Reply to his Motion for Permissive Joinder, which included an Affidavit of Historical Facts of Medical Events. (D.I. 31) Yelardy filed a Motion to Seal on the same date, requesting that his affidavit be sealed because it contained personal medical information. (D.I. 32) The Motion to Seal is unopposed and will be granted. On December 10, 2014, Yelardy filed Motion for Expedited Ruling, requesting a ruling on his Motion for Permissive Joinder. (D.I. 51)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Motion for Permissive Intervention
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B), the Court may permit anyone to intervene who "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." "Whether to grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), as the doctrine's name suggests, is within the discretion of the district court...." Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108, 1124 (3d Cir. 1992). To establish that intervention is warranted under Rule 24(b), the intervenor must demonstrate: (1) an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, (2) a timely motion, and (3) a claim or defense that has a common question of law or fact with the primary litigation. See In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 333 F.Supp.2d 333, 338-39 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
B. Motion to Seal
A party seeking the sealing of documents has the burden of demonstrating that "good cause" exists to maintain protection of its information. See Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786-87 (3d Cir. 1994). "Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure." Id. at 786 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A. Motion for ...