Hershey litigants agree to protective order 

Hershey litigants agree to protective order 

Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Google Plus

Both sides in a contentious legal dispute regarding alleged anti-LGBT reparative therapy at Milton Hershey School have agreed to a protective order in the case.

Funded by the late chocolate magnate Milton S. Hershey, the school serves 2,000 underprivileged youth from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade. Students live on campus in cottages with assigned house parents.

Last year, Adam Dobson, a former Hershey student, filed suit against the school, claiming he was pressured into viewing an antigay video by a house parent.

Dobson, 22, was enrolled in the school for several years, prior to his expulsion in 2013. He’s requesting an unspecified amount in damages and remedial measures at the school.

Dobson alleges that school officials discriminated against him because of his depression — a condition that was exacerbated due to pressure from a house parent to change his sexual orientation.

Another former student, Marcous Marchese, recently spoke out publicly about allegedly being pressured into watching an antigay video by two Hershey house parents in 2010.

Last month, both sides agreed to a detailed protective order in the case. On Sept. 29, U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner approved the protective order. 

Under the order, information relating to the case that isn’t meant to be publicly accessible should be clearly identified as “confidential.” 

The order specifically applies to deposition transcripts, hearing transcripts and information produced due to the issuance of a subpoena.

Deposition transcripts shall presumptively be considered to have been designated “confidential” for a period of 14 days following receipt of the transcript by the parties. 

In the event of an accidental disclosure of confidential information without its designation as “confidential,” the parties will work in good faith to permit the source to correct the disclosure.

Additionally, the order provides for a procedure to challenge a “confidential” designation by either side. If the dispute cannot be resolved in good faith, the parties may seek intervention by the court. The information at issue will remain confidential until the court rules on the confidential designation. 

Neither side had a comment for this story.


BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS

Find us on Facebook
Follow Us
Find Us on YouTube
Find Us on Instagram
Sign Up for Our Newsletter