Sanders v. Illinois Department of Central Management Services
Filing
45
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Plaintiff's Motion for a Pre Trial Determination 41 DENIED. See written order. (Copy of Opinion sent this date via U.S. Mail to pro se Plaintiff at his listed address.) (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 28 July, 2011 11:37:14 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MICHAEL A. SANDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 09-CV-3207
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Sanders’
Motion for Pre Trial Determination (d/e 41) (Motion)1. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court denies the Motion because most of the Motion
improperly asks for advisory opinions. The remainder of the Motion is
vague and does not ask for any specific relief.
The Constitution authorizes federal courts to adjudicate cases and
controversies between parties. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Federal courts,
thus, are not authorized to issue advisory opinions on matters that are not
at issue between the parties. Sierra Club, 405 U.S. 727, 732 n.3 (1972).
1
This motion was referred to the undersigned by the assigned U.S. District
Judge.
Page 1 of 5
In this case, Sanders alleges that his former employer, the Defendant
Illinois Department of Central Management Services (Department), violated
his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by wrongfully:
(1) ordering him to submit to an independent medical examination;
(2) disciplining him for refusing to submit to such an examination; and
(3) discharging him for refusing to submit to such an examination.
Complaint (d/e 1), ¶ 25. The Department denies Sanders’ allegations.
Answer (d/e 6), ¶ 25. This Court, therefore, is authorized to adjudicate this
case or controversy between the parties.2 The Court is not authorized to
give advisory opinions on matters unrelated to the adjudication of the case.
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. at 732 n.3.
The Motion asks for advisory opinions not related to the case and
controversy. The Motion asks the Court for a pre-trial determination
regarding the release of documentation by Dr. Terry Killian. The Motion
asserts that Dr. Killian released information to the Department against
Sanders’ will and in violation of law. Motion, at 1. Sanders explains the
documents at issue are three letters he wrote to Dr. Killian informing
Dr. Killian that Sanders would not appear at appointments for independent
medical examinations arranged by his employer, the Department.
2
Sanders demanded a jury, so any trial will be by jury. Complaint at Prayer for
Relief. The Court, however, rules on matters necessary to facilitate the resolution of the
case as authorized by applicable rules and laws.
Page 2 of 5
Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Pre Trial
Determination (d/e 41) (Memorandum), attached Letters dated April 7,
2006, August 24, 2007, and September 5, 2007.3 The Memorandum poses
three interrogatories to the Court:
Plaintiff Sanders respectfully requests that the Court issue pretrial determinations regarding the following interrogatories:
!
Are the three letters released by Dr. Terry Killian
"protected records" under any provisions HIPPA, ADA
and/or the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities Confidentiality Act (specifically 740 ILCS
110/3(a) & 10).
!
Did Defendant violate Plaintiff Sanders rights under the
provisions of HIPPA, ADA and/or the Illinois Mental
Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act
(specifically 740 ILCS 110/3(a) & 10) by utilizing the
letters in administrative proceedings at the Illinois
Department of Employment Security and the Illinois Civil
Service Commission against Sanders desires.
!
Did Dr. Terry Killian Violate any provisions of the Illinois
Medical Practices Act, 225 ILCS 60 et al, by releasing the
3 letters he received from Plaintiff Sanders to Defendant.
Memorandum, at 3. The Court understands these interrogatories to be part
of the determinations sought by the Motion.
The Motion, including these interrogatories, asks the Court to opine
on matters that are not relevant to the resolution of the case or controversy
3
These documents are structured as memoranda rather than letters. Sanders,
however, refers to the documents as letters. See Memorandum, at 3 (quoted in the
body of this Opinion).
Page 3 of 5
between the parties. The question of whether Dr. Killian violated the
Medical Practices Act, or some other law, as set forth in the Motion and
third interrogatory, is not relevant to Sanders’ claims that the Department
violated his rights under the ADA. Furthermore, Dr. Killian is not a party to
this case, and so, has no opportunity to address Sanders’ questions. The
Court, therefore, will not address this issue at this point in the case.4
The question of whether the Department wrongfully used the
documents in subsequent administrative proceedings, as set forth in the
second interrogatory, is not relevant to the claims before the Court.
Sanders alleges that the Department wrongfully ordered him to undergo
medical examinations, and then wrongfully disciplined, and ultimately
discharged, him for refusing to undergo those examinations. He does not
allege claims for wrongful disclosure of information at administrative
hearings. Because the alleged disclosure is not relevant to the case or
controversy before the Court, the Court is not authorized to offer an
advisory opinion on the matter.
The remaining interrogatory asks for a determination of whether the
letters are protected under federal and state confidentiality statutes. This
4
The circumstances of Dr. Killian’s release of the letters to the Department might
have some relevance to the foundation or admissibility of the letters, but, as discussed
below, the Motion does not challenge the use of the letters as evidence. This Court,
therefore, makes no comment on issues of foundation or admissibility at this time.
Page 4 of 5
portion of the Motion may be related to some potentially relevant issues.
For example, if the documents are statutorily protected confidential records
then Sanders may possibly be entitled to a protective order in discovery.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). There also may be an issue about the
admissibility of the documents. See Fed. R. Evid. 501.5 Sanders may also
have some other purpose for the requested ruling. Sanders, however,
does not tell the Court or the Department why he wants this question
determined before trial, and the Court will not guess. The Court denies
this portion of the Motion because Sanders does not explain the relevance
or purpose of the requested determination.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Sanders’ Motion for Pre Trial
Determination (d/e 41) is DENIED.
ENTER: July 28, 2011
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
The Court expresses no opinion regarding whether Sanders would be entitled to
either a protective order or an order barring the use of the letters as evidence.
Page 5 of 5
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?