Andrews v. Sangamon County Illinois et al

Filing 36

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff Kelli Andrews's Motion to Compel Discovery from Sheriff of Sangamon County 26 is ALLOWED. Defendant Sangamon County, Illinois, Sheriff's Office is hereby ordered to produce to Plaintiff by December 21, 2018, the unredacted copies of the documents previously produced in redacted form. The produced unredacted documents are Confidential Information subject to the Agreed Protective Order entered August 31, 2018 22 . See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 11 December, 2018 11:13:49 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
KELLI ANDREWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SANGAMON COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 18-cv-1100

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kelli Andrews’s
Motion to Compel Discovery from Sheriff of Sangamon County (d/e 26)
(Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED.
BACKGROUND
Andrews is the mother and administrator of the estate of Tiffany
Rusher, deceased. Rusher was mentally ill and killed herself while a
pretrial detainee in custody in the Sangamon County, Illinois, Jail. Andrews
brings this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and state law. See Complaint (d/e 1).

Page 1 of 5

Andrews served a request for production of documents on the
Defendant Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Office
produced redacted copies of certain responsive documents. The
redactions removed identifying information about other inmates. The Court
had already entered a protective order qualified under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. 104-191, 110
Stat. 1936. Agreed Protective Order (d/e 22). The Defendant Sheriff’s
Office redacted the names because it asserted that the identifying
information was protected by the Illinois Mental Health and Disabilities Act,
740 ILCS 110/1 et seq.; Illinois state law evidentiary privileges; and the
possibility of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The Sheriff’s Office also
alleged that the names were not relevant. See Defendants’ Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (d/e 29) (Defendants’ Response), at 2-14.
The Court directed the Sheriff’s Office to provide unredacted versions
of the documents to the Court for in camera inspection to determine
whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege was implicated in any of the
documents. Text Order entered November 27, 2018. The Sheriff’s Office
complied and provided the unredacted copies. Notice of Compliance with
Court Order Dated November 27, 2018 (d/e 35). The Court has reviewed
the documents and determined that none of the documents contain
Page 2 of 5

confidential communications between patient and psychotherapist subject
to the privilege. See Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-10, 16 (1996). This
privilege is not at issue in this case.
ANALYSIS
The Court determines that the Sheriff’s Office shall provide the
unredacted documents to Andrews. Andrews brings federal claims in this
case. Federal law and federal privileges, therefore, control. Northwestern
Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 925 (7th Cir. 2004). Under
federal law, the names of the other inmates can be provided to Andrews
because a HIPAA qualified protective order is in place. 45 C.F.R. §
164.512. The Sheriff’s Office’s arguments to the contrary are not
persuasive. The protective order provides adequate protection of this
information.
The names of other inmates are also relevant under principles of
discovery. Andrews alleges municipal liability claims against Sangamon
County, Illinois, pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of the
City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). See Complaint Count I (official
capacity claim against Defendant Sheriff of Sangamon County). Those
claims put at issue whether Sangamon County has a policy or binding
practice or custom to treat mentally ill pretrial detainees in violation of their
Page 3 of 5

rights. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. The names of other inmates may lead
to admissible information on this issue. Disclosure of their identities on
these documents is proportional to the needs of this case. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1).
Finally, a party may not sua sponte redact non-privileged information
from a responsive document. See e.g., Stewart v. Credit One Bank, N.A.,
2017 WL 3453569, at *3 (D. Kan. August 11, 2017); Toyo Tires & Rubber
Co., Ltd. v. CIA Wheel Group, 2016 WL 6246384, at *2 (C.D. Cal. February
23, 2016); Bonnell v. Carnival Corp., 2014 WL 10979823, at *4 (S.D. Fla.
January 31, 2014); Melchior v. Hilite International, Inc., 2013 WL 2238754,
at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2013); Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., v.
Michelson, 2002 WL 3303691, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. January 30, 2002). The
Sheriff’s Office needed to file a motion for protective order. It should not
have redacted the documents. The Court therefore orders the Sheriff’s
Office to produce the unredacted copies of the documents.
Rule 37(a)(5)(A) requires this Court to award to a prevailing plaintiff
her fees and expenses except in a limited set of cases, including
circumstances that make an award unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A)(iii).
The Court finds that an award in this case would be unjust. The Illinois
Mental Health and Disabilities Act put the Sheriff’s Office in a very difficult
Page 4 of 5

position. It faced a risk of liability under state law if it released the names of
other mentally ill detainees without a court order. The discussions between
the attorneys clearly indicate that this liability was the major concern that
caused the Sheriff’s Office to withhold the names. See generally,
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (d/e 29), Exhibit 4,
Emails Between Counsel. This Court has now resolved that federal law
controls and has ordered the Sheriff’s Office to produce the documents.
Under these difficult circumstances, the Court will not require the
Defendants or their attorneys to pay Andrew’s fees and expenses.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Kelli Andrews’s Motion
to Compel Discovery from Sheriff of Sangamon County (d/e 26) is
ALLOWED. Defendant Sangamon County, Illinois, Sheriff’s Office is
hereby ordered to produce to Plaintiff by December 21, 2018, the
unredacted copies of the documents previously produced in redacted form.
The produced unredacted documents are Confidential Information subject
to the Agreed Protective Order entered August 31, 2018 (d/e 22).
ENTER: December 11, 2018
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 5 of 5