Schuylkill County Clerk of Courts Maria T. Casey has the right to have a say in what information Commissioner George F. Halcovage Jr. and his attorney can see on her county-owned computer hard drive and cellphone, a federal judge ruled last week.

Halcovage contends there may be the unspecified information on the hard drives and in the text messages that could help him defend himself in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in federal court by four courthouse employees.

Casey is not involved in the suit, but has advocated for the women.

“Casey, and the parties, shall consult and confer regarding the establishment of a protocol which will allow Casey to raise and resolve any privacy, confidentiality, relevance and privilege concerns that arise stemming from the discovery demand which defendant George Halcovage has propounded on Schuylkill County which calls for the county to produce in the complete computer hard drive and storage media for Ms. Casey’s work computer as well as all text messages on the county-owned cellphone assigned to Ms. Casey,” United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson wrote.

The judge also ordered both sides to either come to an agreement, or hand over their proposals and documents to him.

“To the extent that the parties cannot agree upon discovery protocols the parties shall submit their competing discovery proposals to the court, along with accompanying memoranda of law regarding their respective positions in this discovery matter, on or before May 10, 2022,” he wrote.

Carlson also ordered Casey to preserve any information on the equipment as both sides figure out how and what information to share.

In his ruling, he referred to an April 15 telephone conference call “regarding a concern raised by counsel regarding the preservation of electronically stored information (ESI) possessed by a proposed intervenor, Maria Casey, and in accordance with the oral guidance provided by the court, it is ordered that all parties and the proposed intervenor take appropriate steps to preserve relevant ESI sought in connection with this litigation. The court otherwise declines to provide the parties with specific direction regarding what steps parties and proposed intervenors need to take to fulfill this basic discovery obligation, and we will address ESI production and spoliation issues, if necessary, when those issues become ripe.”

The judge noted that there was no opposition to Casey’s motion to intervene.

Casey argued that the devices contain private information concerning her employees and those whose cases her office handles.

On Feb. 17, Halcovage’s lawyer, Gerard J. Geiger, asked the court to order the county to give him the copies of the hard drive and cellphone messages of the women who filed the suit and of Casey, while not specifying any dates or specific information.

On March 21, Casey asked the court to intervene in the matter, and deny the request.

On April 6, Geiger asked the judge to stop Casey from using the equipment lest the information he may need be written over.

Casey’s motion for intervention has merit, Carlson wrote.

“The limited intervention sought here by Ms. Casey to address and protect potential confidentiality interests is appropriate in this case. We note that we are not alone in reaching this conclusion. Other courts which have been called upon to consider third party intervention requests to protect confidentiality concerns arising in the context of sexual assault or sexual harassment litigation have granted motions permitting these third parties to intervene to protect their privacy and confidentiality interests,” he wrote.

Casey, who has been a vocal advocate for the women, argued the request to turn over her hard drive and text messages was in retaliation for her support of them.

In a separate order, also filed Monday, Carlson granted a request by the women who filed the lawsuit for an extension of the deadline to produce case management documents.

“Since the court’s revised case management order was entered, on Nov. 11, 2021, the parties have made strides to keep this matter on track, including the exchange of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions and the exchange of approximately 3,000 pages of discovery,” attorney Catherine W. Smith wrote in her request. “However, for the reasons set forth below, and the fact that this matter involves (10) years of events, several items to complete discovery, including all depositions, remain outstanding.”

Carlson set the deadlines for fact discovery: Sept. 5, 2022; expert reports: plaintiff: July 28, 2022, defendants: Sept. 5, 2022; supplementations/rebuttal reports: Oct. 6, 2022; and for dispositive motions: Oct. 27, 2022. A trial date, if the suit is not settled, will be set after that.

The women, identified as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and Jane Doe 4, filed their lawsuit on March 16, 2021.

They contend Halcovage sexually harassed them since he was first elected in 2012 and that other county officials did nothing to stop it, and have tried to cover up the harassment.

Named in the suit are Halcovage, County Administrator Gary R. Bender, Human Resources Director Heidi L. Zula, interim Human Resources Director Doreen Kutzler, First Assistant County solicitor Glenn T. Roth, and Schuylkill County.