The attorney for Schuylkill County Commissioner George F. Halcovage Jr., has responded to county Clerk of Courts Maria T. Casey’s motion to intervene on a request for the contents of the hard drives of each computer assigned to her and for her text messages.

The request was for information Halcovage says is necessary for him to defend himself from a federal lawsuit filed by four women, courthouse employees, who say he sexually harassed them over the course of several years.

Halcovage denies the sexual harassment accusations.

“Although the defendant, George Halcovage, agreed to allow Casey to intervene to make arguments to the court about the confidentiality of her hard drives, the defendant asks that the court reject those arguments and order that the County may provide a copy to Halcovage,” Attorney Gerard J. Geiger says in his 23-page response.

Efforts to reach Casey for comment were unsuccessful as of press time.

Casey filed the motion to intervene in U.S. District Court, Scranton, on March 21 by her attorneys, Frederick J. Fanelli and Sudhir R. Patel of Pottsville.

In her motion, Casey argues that she is not a part of the lawsuit.

Also, the Feb. 17 “overbroad” request from Geiger to the county for the electronic data has no time limit of, nor does it specify what information is being sought, and so could compromise the personal information of her office staff and the people whose cases are handled by her office. Also, the county has no authority over her office - she is an elected official - and so Geiger’s request was made to the wrong party, she contends. Further, she says, the request was fueled by animosity and is in retaliation for her continued support for the women who filed the lawsuit against Halcovage and three county employees whom they contend were complicit. The women are identified in the suit as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and Jane Doe 4; commissioners have accused two of them, who names have since been made public, of making unauthorized searched using the county’s sophisticated database software. Commissioners have attempted to fire them, and in November launched an investigation into the searches.

The searches, of about 300 people, have revealed the personal information of not only the search subjects, but of their friends and neighbors, which the software, LexisNexis, automatically provides.

In his response, Geiger argues that Casey has “inserted herself into an effort to have Halcovage removed from office. She has placed anti-Halcovage videos on her Facebook page, which she films in the county courthouse during hours she should be working on county business. Casey uses the resources of the county to criticize Halcovage. In this petition, she admits she is using county-owned computers in her efforts to have Halcovage removed from office. This is all discoverable information.”

As to the request being directed to the county, Geiger argues that “notably, the county has not objected to the production. The digital evidence Casey seeks to hide is information about her communications with plaintiffs about Halcovage. Casey does not have standing to oppose the production of information on county-owned computers where she has no expectation of privacy.”

Users of county-owned computers “consent(s) to allow county personnel access to and review of all materials created, stored, sent or received by user through any county network or internet connection,” Geiger argues.

He responded to Casey’s contention that the request was “overbroad” by writing that the “plaintiffs sue(d) Halcovage for events that occurred as long ago as 2012, a period of approximately a decade. The computers in Casey’s office and her county-owned cellphone belong to the county. The county has not objected to producing documents on devices it owns.”

“The plaintiffs have made allegations where they cannot even explain what year they claim Halcovage may have made an off-color remark. These were remarks they never reported, despite claiming how traumatized they were. And Casey has essentially admitted that she is in possession of plaintiffs’ statements about Halcovage, which Halcovage needs to defend himself,” Geiger wrote.

All of the contents are needed, Geiger wrote, because “Halcovage and his experts need their expert to evaluate whether Casey may have deleted information involving the plaintiffs that will vindicate Halcovage. That requires the production of the entire hard drives from Casey’s computer and her cellphone, both of which are owned by the county, which does not object to the production.”

Further, the county can redact any information that would compromise office staff or those whose cases they handle, he wrote.

“Case(y) admits to having relevant information. The county already copied Halcovage’s computer for relevant information without any restrictions on time or confidentiality. Casey inserted herself in this case, has frequent communications with the plaintiffs about Halcovage, admits to having relevant information, and now wants to hide that information from Halcovage and from public view. If the county has Halcovage’s hard drive, which it did copy, there is no reason why Casey’s hard drive is subject to special protection,” Geiger wrote.