remote and even imaginary and cannot be squared with the reality that the opinions of IPRA and their investigations are frequently scrutinized in the public forum.” Pl.’s Sur-Reply Br. at 4. The Court does agree that there is some danger that compelling disclosure of the draft summary reports could impede the candor of IPRA pre-decisional discussions in the future. See Guzman, 2011 WL 55979, at *4 (positing that “requiring the production of communications among IPRA investigators and their supervisors constitutes an intrusion that would seriously hinder the frank discussion that governmental decisions deserve”). That IPRA investigative files are often sought in excessive force cases only increases the risk that disclosure could chill future deliberations. Cf. Evans, 231 F.R.D. at 317 (<HOLDING>). But the extent of the impact on IPRA
holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues holding that disclosing prepardon discussions would not hinder future pardon decisions because most pardon decisions are never the subject of or relevant to any litigation holding that decisions by prior panels are binding holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions holding that traditional allocation of burden of proof to the party challenging the decisions applies to decisions under the tca