Hanson v. Baxter County Arkansas et al

Filing 100

ORDER directing Plaintiff to provide the journal to Dr. Tullis by no later than 2/9/12. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on January 31, 2012. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
TAMMY CHRISTINE HANSON
v.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 10-3022

BAXTER COUNTY, ARKANSAS;
SHERIFF JOHN MONTGOMERY;
LIEUTENANT RANDALL WEAVER;
DR. JOSEPH TULLIS; DEPUTY WILTON
“CHIP” NORRIS; JAILER HELEN FENWICK;
JAILER TONY BECK; JAILER WILLIAM
ALTRAZAN;and JAILER GARNETT McMAHON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
While she was incarcerated at the Baxter County Detention Center, Plaintiff kept a
journal as a means of substantiating and documenting the conditions she was subjected to. By
order entered on January 12, 2012 (Doc. 74), Plaintiff was directed to provide to Defendant
Tullis by January 27, 2012, all portions of the journal that contained facts or factual details
regarding Plaintiff's claims including her conditions of confinement. If there were any portions
of the journal that she maintained only contained her mental impressions or strategy, Plaintiff
was directed to submit those portions to the Court for in camera review.
The Court has received from Plaintiff what appears to be her entire journal. The
unnumbered pages begin with the date September 26, 2009, and end on June 15, 2010.
According to documents submitted in connection with the summary judgment motion, Plaintiff
was booked into the BCDC on September 25, 2009, and released on July 10, 2010.
“The work product privilege is designed to promote the operation of the adversary system
by ensuring that a party cannot obtain materials that his opponent has prepared in anticipation
of litigation.” Pittman v. Frazer, 129 F.3d 983, 988 (8th Cir. 1997). The work product doctrine
does not bar discovery of facts contained in the documents. “[T]he plaintiff may not rely on

-1-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

work-product protection to refuse to respond to discovery requests seeking disclosure of
nonprivileged fact.” Phillips Electronics North American Corp. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.,
892 F. Supp. 108 (D. Del. 1995).
The journal contains chronological entries regarding daily activities at the BCDC. For
instance, Plaintiff has recorded whether her requests for showers were granted or denied and the
timing of the showers; whether her medication was distributed in a timely manner, by whom, and
whether she went to the day-room to receive it or remained in her cell; whether her cell was cold
and her requests to have her cell warmed up; when she submitted grievances or requests and
what response, if any, she received; the lack of privacy in her cell; the lack of cleanliness of the
shower; when she was denied various items including cranberry juice, Listerine, feminine
hygiene products, etc.
The journal is not protected work product. Instead, it is a collection of contemporaneous
facts which Plaintiff recorded to substantiate and document the conditions Plaintiff was subjected
to. Plaintiff is directed to provide the journal to Dr. Tullis by no later than February 9,
2012.
Plaintiff also submitted a folder containing other documents in her possession. These
documents were not addressed by the Court's order of January 12, 2012 (Doc. 74). The Court
has no way of knowing if these documents were sought by Defendants during discovery or
whether Plaintiff has withheld them claiming the documents constitute work product.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January 2012.
/s/ J. Marschewski
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)