Castillon et al v. Correction Corporation of America Inc
Filing
112
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 102 is GRANTED. Defendant's Response is deemed timely. Plaintiffs' Motion to Co mpel 96 is DENIED. Defendant' Motion to Set Amended Pleadings Deadline 101 isGRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. All motions to amend or to join parties shall be filed no later than 2/28/2014. Defendant's Motion to Seal Exhibits 1, 2-B, and 3-A to CCA's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 104 is GRANTED. Those exhibits 105 are ordered to remain SEALED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
OMAR CASTILLON, DUSTY
KNIGHT, JUSTIN KEITH PETERSON,
LEON RUSSELL, CHRISTOPHER S.
JORDAN, JACOB JUDD, MICHAEL
FORD-BRIDGES, and RAYMOND
BRYANT,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00559-EJL
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
This civil rights action was filed by a group of prisoners against Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA), the company operating the Idaho Correctional Center
(ICC), the private prison where the Plaintiffs were confined when they were attacked and
injured by another group of prisoners. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has violated their
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
After discovery disputes arose earlier in this case, the Court determined that
counsel for all parties had “refused to interact with each other reasonably and civilly.
Many of the motions and briefs filed by both parties are full of hyperbole and contain
unfounded accusations against opposing counsel.” (Order of Referral, Dkt. 80, at 1.) The
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
Court therefore referred this case to the Honorable Mikel H. Williams for a discovery
mediation, which fortunately was somewhat successful. The parties came to agreement on
many of their disputes and filed a Stipulation, approved by the Court on November 15,
2013, as to certain discovery issues.
Alas, this spirit of cooperation unfortunately (though perhaps unsurprisingly) did
not last. Only slightly over one month after the Court approved the Stipulation, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion to Compel, seeking information purportedly covered by two of Plaintiffs’
Requests for Production. (Dkt. 96.) Therefore, the Court is required, once again, to wade
into the sandbox because the lines of communication between the parties’ respective sand
castles have broken down. Other motions are also pending.
Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Accordingly, the Court will
decide this matter on the record without oral argument. D. Idaho L. R. 7.1. For the
reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel will be denied. Further, the Court will
set an amended pleadings deadline of February 28, 2014, and will grant Defendant’s
Motion to Seal.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1.
Overview of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production
Plaintiffs seek specific information they claim is covered by Requests for
Production Nos. 10 and 12. (Dkt. 96 at 2.) Request for Production No. 10 reads as
follows:
Please produce all documents and communications
including copies of the unit log books, shift logs, and other
activity logs for all staff and contractors at ICC and
containing at least the identity of the staff member, the sign in
and sign out times for the staff member, and the duty
assignment for the time period commencing January 1, 2009
and continuing through May 14, 2012.
(Dkt. 96-3 at 1-2.)
Request for Production No. 12 provides:
Please produce all documents and communications
including all records containing the terms of compensation
and bonuses for any CCA employee with any supervisory
authority who was employed by CCA to work at ICC for any
period of time that includes the time period commencing
January 1, 2009 and continuing through December 31, 2012.
(Dkt. 96-3 at 2.)
2.
The Parties’ Stipulation
As a result of their discovery mediation, the parties stipulated to provide several
types of discovery to one another. In relevant part, Defendant agreed to produce
“[s]taffing records regarding ICC from March 2010 through May 5, 2012, including staff
rosters, electronic sign-in, time card information. Plaintiffs reserve the right to expand
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
this time frame and Defendants reserve the right to object.” (Dkt. 90 at 3.) Defendant also
stipulated to provide “[w]arden bonus reports and supporting documentation
encompassing the periods from August 2008 through May 30, 2012.” (Id.)
3.
Plaintiffs’ Current Position
In their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs specifically ask for the following
information, allegedly encompassed by Request for Production No. 10:
Specifically all electronic Kronos and wage data
relating to employees at ICC during 2008-2012. A shorter
time range was produced in .pdf format only which cannot be
reasonably used by former FBI agent Verna Kessler in her
investigation. CCA has refused to produce them in machine
readable format.
(Mot. to Compel, Dkt. 96, at 2.)
Plaintiffs also contend they need the following specific information, which is
purportedly responsive to Request for Production No. 12:
Specifically documents (including electronic data)
related to CCA’s incentive plan for Wengler, Myers, and
Conley,[1] including the stock and stock option plans and
awards and the incentive bonus data such as facility EBIDITA
goals and facility expense goals, and actual results, by
category, for the years 2008-2012. Plaintiffs also seek all
documents (including electronic documents) reflecting
communications by, between or with the same CCA
employees discussing establishment of these incentivized
goals and progress toward the incentivized goals during the
same time period (2008-2012).
(Dkt. 96 at 2.)
1
The correct spelling of this person’s last name is “Conry.”
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
4.
“Incentive Plan Documents”
The Motion to Compel initially sought stock option and bonus information
regarding the employment of three CCA employees: Tim Wengler, former warden of
ICC; K. Myers, Managing Director of Operations of ICC’s region; and S. Conry, CCA’s
Vice President of Facility Operations for Business Unit 3. (Dkt. 96; Dkt. 103 at 9.)
However, Plaintiffs acknowledge in their Reply in Support of the Motion to Compel that
Defendant has produced stock agreements for former warden Wengler, as well as another
former warden. (Dkt. 109 at 4.) Defendant has also already provided Plaintiffs with ICC’s
Facility Bonus Plans for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Thus, the only remaining
stock option and bonus information at issue is that pertaining to employees Myers and
Conry.
However, Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 12 sought information regarding
“the terms of compensation and bonuses for any CCA employee with any supervisory
authority who was employed by CCA to work at ICC.” (Dkt. 96-3 at 2) (emphasis added).
And the Stipulation stated that Defendant would produce “[w]arden bonus reports and
supporting documentation.” (Dkt. 90 at 3) (emphasis added).
Myers and Conry work in Nashville, Tennessee. They do not work at ICC. They
are not prison wardens. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel improperly seeks
information that Plaintiffs did not include in their discovery request. Plaintiffs’ Motion is
therefore frivolous. It should have been obvious to Plaintiffs’ counsel that Request for
Production No. 12 did not cover the information Plaintiffs seek regarding Myers and
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
Conry. Indeed, even after Defendant pointed out this fact in its Response to the Motion to
Compel, Plaintiffs’ counsel ignored it, offering absolutely no reason why he thought it
appropriate to waste the Court’s time and resources by filing a frivolous motion to
compel. (See Reply, Dkt. 109.) It is obvious, and should have been obvious to all
attorneys involved in this case, that Plaintiffs are not entitled to this information.
5.
Kronos Data
Kronos Workforce Timekeeper Central is the timekeeping system used by CCA. It
is undisputed that Defendant has produced Kronos data in searchable .pdf format for the
time period covered by the Stipulation. Plaintiffs argue, however, that this is not a
reasonably usable format and request that this information be re-produced in machine
readable format and also request data covering a longer period of time. (Dkt. 96 at 2.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs the production of documents,
including electronically stored information. In requesting electronically stored
information, a party may specify a form of production. If the requesting party does not
specify a form for the information, the responding party must produce it “in a form or
forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonable usable form or forms.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34(b)(E)(ii). A responding party “need not produce the same electronically
stored information in more than one form.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(E)(iii).
Plaintiffs’ expert, Verna Kessler, has averred that she has attempted to convert the
searchable .pdf files into a database format, that she has made little progress, and that it
would take approximately 300-500 hours, in addition to the 45 hours she has already
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
spent, to complete the process. (Dkt. 109-1 at ¶ 3.) Thus, argue Plaintiffs, the .pdf format
is not reasonably usable.
John Pfeiffer, Vice Present of Technology and Chief Information Officer for CCA,
attests to the following regarding the Kronos system:
Kronos, as CCA utilizes it, is set up to natively provide
employee time detail information in a Portable Document
Format, or .pdf. This is the only built-in, reasonably
accessible data format of which I am aware for Kronos time
detail extraction. While some system data can in fact be
produced in Excel format, that data does not include time
detail to my knowledge.
....
Should a facility, such as the Idaho Correctional
Center, wish to run a report containing employee time detail
information, to my knowledge the facility’s only option is to
generate a report formatted as a .pdf. This is the same
method that CCA’s Facility Support Center uses when
producing time detail information in the regular course of
business.
(Pfeiffer Decl., Dkt. 103-3 ¶ 10, 13) (emphasis added). Pfeiffer continues, “To produce
the Kronos time detail information in an electronic data format, such as .csv, would
require CCA to write a script that would then enable it to export the time detail
information Plaintiffs seek.” (Id. at ¶ 17.) Pfeiffer has described the requirements for
creating such a script, or program, and it is lengthy and daunting. As summarized by
Defendant’s counsel, it would require “a team of between three and four people at CCA’s
Facility Support Center in Nashville to expend three to four days creating the script,
testing it, and confirming the accuracy of the data it produces.” (Dkt. 103 at 12.)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7
Plaintiffs did not specify the format in which the timekeeping information should
be produced. Therefore, under Rule 34, Defendant was entitled to produce it either (1) the
form “in which it is ordinarily maintained” or (2) in a reasonably usable format.
Defendant has sufficiently shown that any report or other extraction of data from the
Kronos system is natively produced in a searchable .pdf format. Because Defendant has
already produced the Kronos data in that format, it is not required to re-produce it in a
different form. Further, the Court (which is familiar with searchable .pdf format) finds
that a searchable .pdf format is a reasonably usable form in this case because, as the name
implies, it can be easily searched. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ request for reproduction of the Kronos data.2
The Court does note, however, that if Plaintiffs agree to pay for Defendant’s
expenses in writing a script that would produce the Kronos data in the form in which
Plaintiffs prefer, Plaintiffs may approach Defendant with such a request.
6.
Attorneys’ Fees
The Court has seriously considered awarding Defendant its attorneys’ fees
incurred as a result of Plaintiffs’ frivolous Motion to Compel. The Court has determined,
however, that it will reserve the decision whether to pursue such sanctions against
Plaintiffs. However, should Plaintiffs continue to engage in abusive discovery practices,
2
The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs’ request for data reaching all the way back to
2008—4 years prior to the incident in question—is unreasonable.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8
the Court may decide that sanctions are appropriate, which may not be limited to
monetary sanctions.
Moreover, the Court will not entertain any more motions to compel, by either
party, unless that party certifies that the parties’ attorneys have met, face-to-face, in at
least one conference lasting at least two hours and that they have discussed—and
genuinely attempted to resolve—each aspect of the dispute covered by the motion to
compel. An exchange of emails or a telephone conference will not suffice.
Further, any motion to compel that seeks information outside the scope of a
discovery request will be summarily denied, and sanctions may issue.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET
AMENDED PLEADINGS DEADLINE
The parties have been unable to agree on a stipulated deadline for motions to
amend or to join parties. The Court concludes that such a deadline is necessary, but it will
not adopt Defendant’s proposed deadline, which has already passed. Rather, all such
motions shall be due February 28, 2014.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Response
to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 102) is GRANTED. Defendant’s
Response is deemed timely.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9
2.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 96) is DENIED.
3.
Defendant’s Motion to Set Amended Pleadings Deadline (Dkt. 101) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. All motions to amend or to
join parties shall be filed no later than February 28, 2014.
4.
Defendant’s Motion to Seal Exhibits 1, 2-B, and 3-A to CCA’s Response to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 104) is GRANTED. Those exhibits
(Dkt. 105) are ordered to remain SEALED.
DATED: February 7, 2014
Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?