Erie County Attorney Cheryl A. Green will appeal a federal judge's ruling to let the

U.S. Justice Department interview Holding Center inmates next week without a county lawyer

present and to allow a federal suicide-prevention expert to informally interview county

employees.

With a federal inspection of the jail scheduled to begin Monday, Green late Thursday asked

for a stay of Skretny's ruling so she can appeal to the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of

Appeals.

She says the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the Justice Department to collect

testimony only during formal depositions, where she may object to questions and a court report

creates a transcript.

Document: U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny's official ruling on the Holding Center

The Justice Department responded that it as "beyond belief" that the Erie County "would

prefer to delay and distract with their latest in a series of meritless motions rather than

comply with this court's orders."

The Justice Department said Green cannot meet the standard for a stay and her motion must

be denied.

Skretny allowed Erie County's lawyers to listen while the Justice Department's

suicide-prevention expert interviews Holding Center employees Monday and Tuesday about the

practices and policies in place at the Holding Center.

However, Green said that disputes could arise later about the accuracy of the employee's

statements. As a result, the lawyers who were present during the conversation could then

become witnesses in the case as both sides try to recall the employee's statements, she said.

Green said the same result could arise from the Justice Department's closed-door interviews

with inmates about their experiences with the Holding Center's suicide screening and mental

health care. The Justice Department lawyers, she said, could become witnesses as the inmate's

comments are presented.

She also said that Erie County intends to also interview any inmates interviewed in

seclusion by the Justice Department — a practice that Skretny's ruling would seem to

allow, if the inmate is willing.

"The public interest weighs in favor of a stay," Green wrote. "If information is disclosed

without the protections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the integrity of the

discovery process itself will be irreparably damaged, and the ability to ascertain the true

facts will be compromised."