Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 223

OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that the discovery process in this case is restructured as follows: (1) First, any party seeking resolution of a discovery dispute must file a request for mediation with the magistrate judge. (2) Mediation will take p lace with the magistrate judge as mediator. (3) Because the resolution of discovery disputes has been so contentious in this case, any and all discovery disputes resolved by mediation must be reduced to writing. The court will not recognize any oral agreements. (4) The parties may file an appropriate objection or motion for resolution of those discovery disputes not resolved in mediation before the magistrate judge. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/27/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA DUNN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as
Commissioner of the
Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv601-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
The
more

plaintiffs

than

40

Disabilities

in

state

Advocacy

this

class-action

prisoners
Program.

and

lawsuit
the

They

are

Alabama

assert

the

following claims: inadequate medical and mental-health
treatment in Alabama prison facilities; denial of due
process for involuntary medical treatment; failure to
accommodate prisoners with disabilities properly; and
denial of prisoners’ rights to communicate with counsel
and
They

challenge
rely

on

the
the

conditions
First,

of

their

Eighth,

and

confinement.
Fourteenth

Amendments (as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983); the
Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(42

U.S.C.

§§ 12131-12134); and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794).

The defendants are the Alabama

Department of Corrections, its Commissioner, and its
Associate

Commissioner

of

Health

Services.

Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights).
This cause is

before the

court on the

question

whether the protocol for resolving discovery matters in
this case needs to be restructured.

For the reasons

explained below, the answer is “Yes,” and this opinion
explains why and how.
To date, discovery has proceeded in this case with
a magistrate judge at the helm, but with objections to
the magistrate judge’s discovery orders then reviewed
by the court.
judge

and

This means that, between the magistrate
the

decision-makers

for

court,
the

that already have arisen.

there
numerous

have

been

discovery

two

disputes

This duplication of efforts
2

has

been

expended

inefficient;

has

caused

delays;

unnecessarily

the

resources

of

and

has

both

the

parties and the court.
The first discovery dispute in this case arose over
four

months

ago.

See

Plaintiffs’

Motion

Production of Documents (doc. no. 109).

to

Compel

Since that

motion was filed, the magistrate judge has issued three
orders on discovery, see Orders dated April 8, 2015,
May 12, 2015, & June 10, 2015 (doc. nos. 133, 163, &
199); the plaintiffs have filed objections to each, see
Plaintiffs’

Objection

to

Order

on

Motion

to

Compel

Production of Documents, Plaintiffs’ Renewed Objection
to Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents, &
Plaintiffs’

Objection

to

Order

on

Motion

to

Compel

Adequate Site Inspections (doc. nos. 146, 173, & 202);
and both parties have filed numerous briefs and engaged
in long hearings before the magistrate judge.
appeals

now

await

resolution

before

this

These
court.

Moreover, it is clear from the parties’ responses to

3

the

court’s

recent

show-cause

order1

that

continued

jurisdiction over discovery by the magistrate judge in
this case will result in further appeals.

See Order

(doc. no. 213); Defendants’ Response (doc. no. 214);
Plaintiffs’ Response (doc. no. 216).

Meanwhile, the

1. The court’s show-cause order was as follows:
“Chief Judge W. Keith Watkins entered the
following
order
in
Hope
for
Families
&
Community Service, Inc., et al. v. Warren, et
al., civil action no. 3:06cv1113-WKW:
‘Upon review of the plaintiffs’ appeal
of
the
discovery
order
of
the
Magistrate Judge ... and the filings
related to the deferred portions of
the plaintiffs’ motions to compel ...,
it is obvious to the undersigned that
discovery and other pretrial rulings
by the Magistrate Judge will very
likely result in further appeals,
delay,
and
undue
expenditure
of
resources of the parties and of the
court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED
that reference of discovery motions to
the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn
until further order of the court.’
...
It is ORDERED that the parties in this
case show cause, if any there be, in writing by
July 1, 2015, as to why a similar order is not
warranted in this case.” Order (doc. no. 213).
4

briefing

schedule

for

class

certification--and

this

court’s determination on the matter--has been delayed
until these disputes are resolved, which could delay
the trial of the case.
The court recognizes that, due to the scale of this
case, discovery is both voluminous and complex.
court

also

resolving

recognizes

that

disagreements

discovery

and

the

the

parties’

regarding

plaintiffs’

difficulty

the

access

to

The

scope

of

information

within the defendants’ control makes sense: The nature
of this case means that the strength of the parties’
arguments

very

plaintiffs
Because

well

obtain

the

consequential

may

through

discovery
to

turn

the

on

the

disputes
outcome

of

evidence

that

discovery
here
the

process.

could
case

the

be

as

as

later

determinations on the dispositive questions, they have
been

litigated

resulted
district

in

with

numerous

court

of

the

same

requests

zeal,

and

for

review

“non-dispositive”

5

this

has

by

the

matters.

Nevertheless, many of the discovery disputes boil down
to logistical, practical issues.
Further,

the

court

is

impressed

that,

when

discovery issues are resolved in this case, they tend
to be resolved most expeditiously, and more likely to
the

greatest

simply

sit

literally,
issues

satisfaction

down
and

at

table,

informally

between

resolutions

a

occur

of

all,

either

attempt

themselves.
sometimes

when

at

parties

figuratively

to

And

the

resolve
these

the

urging

or

these

informal
of

the

magistrate judge or the court.
Based on these concerns and observations, the court
is convinced that the case would proceed more smoothly,
and more swiftly, if the court’s resources were used in
a different way and thus that it is the best interest
of

all

to

restructure

the

procedures

for

resolving

discovery disputes in this case.2

2. Also, the court cannot overlook that, while
researching the issue at hand, it became apparent that
there is no standing order or local rule in this
district referring discovery matters to its magistrate
6

The referral of matters to magistrate judges is
meant

to

“increas[e]

Federal judiciary.”

the

overall

efficiency

of

the

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,

268 (1976) (citing S. Rep. No. 371, 90th Cong., 1st
Sess., 11 (1967)).

Here, on the one hand, instead of

increasing efficiency, the referral of discovery to the
magistrate judge for formal resolution has resulted in
and

likely

will

continue

delays and inefficiency.
likely

some--if

not

to

result

in

significant

On the other hand, there are

many--discovery

issues

(many

of

which, as said, are logistical) that could benefit from
an informal first pass by a mediator familiar with the
case, who can assist the parties in coming to a quick
resolution on certain disputes and reduce the parties’
need to resort to the formal, adversarial process on so

judges.
Nor is there any formal order of referral in
this case.
It appears that referral of such matters
has been done by custom only.
However, because
“custom”
does
not
establish
the
legality
of
a
procedure, there is the concern that the referral of
this matter to the magistrate judge, without a local
rule, a standing order, or a formal order in the
instant case, was not proper in the first place.
7

many discovery-related questions.

A mediator also can

make

to

logistical

recommendations

the

court

as

necessary, and, at the very least, can winnow down the
number of issues that must be presented to this court.
In short, the court believes that a mediation process
would best serve all in getting done what needs to be
done.

While the court’s show-cause order, see supra

note 1, suggested withdrawing discovery from the reach
of the magistrate judge altogether, the court believes
that it still needs the help of the magistrate judge
and

therefore

will

adopt

the

magistrate

judge

as

a

mediator.
The court has already discussed this new process
with

the

magistrate

judge,

who

is

well-trained

in

mediation, and he concurs that the process will likely
result in a more expeditious resolution of discovery
disputes.
* * *
Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that

the

discovery

process in this case is restructured as follows:
8

(1) First,

any

discovery

party

dispute

seeking
must

resolution

file

a

of

request

a
for

mediation with the magistrate judge.
(2) Mediation will take place with the magistrate
judge as mediator.
(3) Because the resolution of discovery disputes
has been so contentious in this case, any and
all discovery disputes resolved by mediation
must be reduced to writing.

The court will not

recognize any oral agreements.
(4) The parties may file an appropriate objection
or

motion

for

resolution

of

those

discovery

disputes not resolved in mediation before the
magistrate judge.
DONE, this the 27th day of July, 2015.
___/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE