Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01394-GIVIS Document 107 Filed 1 1/07/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
)
CAPTAIN BARBARA CONLEY, )
)
Plaintiff )
v. )
)
COLONEL L. AARON CHAFFINCH, ) C.A. No. 04-1394-GMS
individually and in his official capacity as the )
Superintendent, Delaware State Police; )
LIEUTENANT COLONEL THOMAS F. )
MACLEISH, individually and in his official )
capacity as the Deputy Superintendent, Delaware )
State Police; DAVID B. MITCHELL, individually )
and in his official capacity as Secretary of the )
Department of Safety and Homeland Security, )
State of Delaware; and DIVISION OF STATE )
POLICE, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND )
HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF )
DELAWARE, )
Defendants. ) _
ORDER
1. On December 6, 2004, Captain Barbara Conley ("Conley") filed an amended complaint (D.I.
7) in the above-captioned action, alleging gender discrimination by Colonel L. Aaron
Chaffinch ("Chaffinch"), Lieutenant Colonel Thomas F. Macleish ("Mac1eish"), David B.
Mitchell ("Mitchell"), and Division of State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland
Security, State of D elaware ("DSP") (collectively, the "defendants"), in violation ofthe First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
amended complaint contains three counts: (I) failure to promote based on gender
discrimination, (2) retaliation in violation ofthe First Amendment based on Conley’s filing
of this lawsuit; and (3) retaliation in violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment right to petition

Case 1 :04-cv—01394-GIVIS Document 107 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 2 of 3
the government for redress of grievances. The amended complaint also contains sexually
based allegations directed at Chaffinch. Some examples of these allegations include:
"Chaffinch constantly, in the presence of plaintiff, other women and men, recounts a wide
variety of more than five sexually charged limericks and jokes which are offensive to
women." (D.I. 7 1] 40); "Chaffinch tells plaintiff, other women and men, that he has
‘something extra,’ meaning that he is not circumcised. He then refers to his penis publicly
by a nickname." (Id. 1] 41); and "Chaffinch publically (sic) refers to one secretary as ‘lemon
Ti-—ies’, which is a reference to her breast size." (Id. 1] 48.)
2. On October l9, 2005, Conley filed a letter (D.I. 93) requesting an expedited and sealed
chambers conference. The letter asserts that the defendants continue to engage in party and
witness intimidation during the discovery process. The letter also seeks an order barring
defense counsel and defendants from disclosing its materials and allegations, as well as other
relief According to the letter, the defendants recently have filed supplemental Rule 26
disclosures, identifying approximately twenty-tive additional witnesses, some of whom are
expected to testify about Conley’s alleged sexual history and sexual conduct in the
workplace.
3. On October 20, 2005, the defendants filed a letters (D.I. 94, 95) addressing Conley’s
assertions, specifically the assertion that they had engaged in party and witness intimidation.
4. Between October 20, 2005 and November 3, 2005, the parties filed a series of letters (D.I.
96, 101, 104-06) regarding the request for a chambers conference, and discovery issues
relating to the defendants’ supplemental disclosures. After having considered the parties’
assertions, the court concludes that a chambers conference is necessary to address certain
2

Case 1 :04-cv—01394-GIVIS Document 107 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 3 of 3
issues raised in the pa1ties’ letters.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A chambers conference regarding the issues raised in the parties’ letters has been set
for Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse,
844 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware in Courtroom 4A. Counsel with primary
responsibility for this case shall appear.
2. The plaintiff should be prepared to discuss the basis upon which Chaffinch’s alleged
sexual conduct is relevant to this litigation which, to the court’s knowledge, does not
include a claim of sexual harassment.
3. The defendants should be prepared to discuss the relevancy of Conley’s alleged
sexual conduct to this litigation.
4. The plaintiff and the defendants should be prepared to discuss the discovery issue
regarding the defendants’ supplemental Rule 26 disclosures, and addition of
approximately twenty-five witnesses to their case.
Dated: November AL , 2005 l@
UNI GED S EXTES DISTRQT JUDGE
F I L E D
NQV 7 ZGGB
¤}§$¢.?é$TSé°¤‘E‘E2t‘t2EE 3