McGee v. Edwards

Filing 77

OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 06/19/2012. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. The Sixth Motion to Compel (d/e 68) is GRANTED IN PART. Counsel for Defendants is directed to determine whether any disciplinary records exist regarding Defendant Feld. Defendants are DIRECTED to answer the Second Set of Admissions to Defendants within 14 days. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond to Defendant Edwards' First Set of Interrogatories within 30 days. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff anothe r copy of the Court's May 17, 2012 Opinion d/e 72 . In addition, the discovery deadline is extended to July 30, 2012 solely for purposes of answering Defendant Edwards' First Set of Interrogatories and for purpose of communicating with Plaintiff's seven witnesses. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to August 13, 2012. (DM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 19 June, 2012 02:16:40 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CHARLES E. MCGEE, #N87707,
Plaintiff,
v.
STIRLING O. EDWARDS, DAVID
CARLOCK, and JOHN FELD,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 10-3152

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Sixth Motion to
Compel (d/e 68). On June 18, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the
Motion, at which time Plaintiff raised a number of additional issues.
Plaintiff was present via video conference and Defendants’ attorney, Erin
O’Boyle, was present via telephone. The Court, having ruled at the
hearing, sets forth that ruling herein.
I.

Sixth Motion to Compel (d/e 68)
Plaintiff filed a Sixth Motion to Compel seeking to compel

Defendants to answer discovery asking whether any of the Defendants

have ever been accused of any misconduct during their employment with
the Illinois Department of Corrections and if so, provide when, with
whom, and the “conclusion of the allegation.” See Defendant Edwards’
Answers to Plaintiff’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories attached to the
Motion to Compel (d/e 68) and setting forth the interrogatories
propounded by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also asserts that in the Fourth Set of
Interrogatories, he asked Defendants to state whether they had ever been
accused of assaulting an inmate and, if so, state when, against what
inmate, and whether the allegations were brought via a court action.
Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s motion. See d/e 70. Defendants
asserted that the request is irrelevant and unlikely to lead to the
discovery of admissible, relevant evidence. Defendants further asserted
that the information sought is confidential and its release may
compromise the safety and security of the facilities. Defendants stated
that “[i]t is a security concern for inmates to have the disciplinary records
of the personnel meant to maintain the stability of the facility.”
On May 17, 2012, this Court directed Defendants to submit to the

Page 2 of 8

Court, under seal, any of Defendants’ personnel records relating to
discipline imposed for the use of force or restraint. Defendants complied
with the order and, on June 7, 2012, this Court set the matter for hearing
on any objections to the production of any specific documents.
At the hearing, Defendants continued to object to the production of
the documents, noting that the documents were confidential under
Illinois law and that inmates are prohibited from possessing such
documents.
The Sixth Motion to Compel is granted in part. Plaintiff shall have
access to the documents at trial. The Court also summarized the
documents for Plaintiff at the hearing as follows:
A.

Re: Carlock. April 26, 2012 memorandum: Management
agreed to reduce the discipline for Carlock to an oral
reprimand re: Grievance No. 519326

B.

Re: Carlock: Grievance No. 519326: AFSCME/State of
Illinois Contract Grievance. Requested rescission of discipline
and expungement of written reprimand.

C.

Re Carlock: March 21, 2010 Memorandum: Employee Review
Board report.
The report noted that the investigator concluded that all three
Page 3 of 8

staff failed to report the use of force against Inmate McGee
and referred all three for discipline.
Notes that Carlock was charged with (1) failing to report; (2)
failing to comply with Department Rules, written procedures,
bulletins, or verbal orders. Concluded that Carlock did
report, although probably not in the complete manner the
investigator felt appropriate. Carlock did not use any force
against Plaintiff, as Plaintiff admitted. Carlock should have
reported Edwards’ physical handling of Plaintiff. There was
no support for the claim that Carlock failed to report the
incident to the supervisor because the supervisor was present.
D.

Re: Edwards. January 28, 2011 Memorandum: Employee
Review Board Referral. Describes the incident. References
what the video camera showed: Edwards using physical force
while removing Plaintiff from the wing and showed Edwards
escorting Plaintiff to the segregation unit with one of his arms
around Plaintiff’s neck and the other holding Plaintiff’s arm
while Feld walked along side Edwards.
Concluded that Edwards failed to document that physical
force was used and did not comply with Departmental written
procedures. Found Edwards knowingly and willfully failed to
properly report and properly document the use of force during
the incident in the housing unit and again during the escort to
the segregation unit. A ten-day suspension was recommended
but disapproved by the Warden, who imposed a written
reprimand.

Counsel for Defendants is directed to determine whether any
disciplinary records exist regarding Defendant Feld, particularly in light

Page 4 of 8

of the statements in the records produced under seal that “the responding
supervisor simply did not take control of the situation” and that staff had
“low confidence in Sgt. Feld’s ability to make decisions.”
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (d/e 67)
At the hearing, Plaintiff indicated he contacted the Warden as

directed by this Court in the text order of June 12, 2012. This Court will
enter a text order asking that the Warden respond to Plaintiff’s request
within 14 days of today. Attorney O’Boyle, indicated she would deliver
that text order to the Warden (who she does not represent and who is
not a party to this action).
III.

Plaintiff’s Second Set of Admissions to Defendants
At the hearing, Plaintiff noted that an issue remained regarding his

Second Set of Admissions to Defendants, served May 4, 2012.
Defendants filed an objection (d/e 71) to Plaintiff’s Second Set of
Admissions to Defendant on May 15, 2012. Plaintiff stated at the
hearing that he did not receive the objection.
Defendants’ objections are overruled. Defendants are directed to

Page 5 of 8

answer the Second Set of Admissions to Defendants within 14 days.
IV.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel (d/e 65)
Plaintiff also raised issues relating to Defendants’ Motion to

Compel (d/e 65) which sought to compel Plaintiff to respond to
Defendant Edwards’ First Set of Interrogatories. Although the Court
granted the Motion to Compel on May 17, 2012 and directed Plaintiff to
answer those interrogatories by June 4, 2012, it appears Plaintiff has not
been receiving all of the filings. Therefore, Plaintiff is directed to respond
to Defendant Edwards’ First Set of Interrogatories as if they were
directed to him within 30 days. The Clerk is also directed to send
Plaintiff another copy of the Court’s May 17, 2012 Opinion (d/e 72).
V.

Deadlines
The discovery deadline is extended to July 30, 2012 solely for

purposes of answering Defendant Edwards’ First Set of Interrogatories
and for purpose of communicating with Plaintiff’s seven witnesses. The
dispositive motion deadline is extended to August 13, 2012. The
Proposed Pretrial Order deadline (November 8, 2012), Final Pretrial

Page 6 of 8

Conference date (November 26, 2012) and the Jury Trial date
(December 4, 2012) remain the same.
VI.

Admonishment
The Court discloses that, after Attorney O’Boyle was disconnected

by the Clerk, the Court admonished Plaintiff for his disrespectful attitude
toward Attorney O’Boyle. Plaintiff apologized for his behavior.
VII. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Sixth Motion to Compel (d/e 68) is
GRANTED IN PART. Counsel for Defendants is directed to determine
whether any disciplinary records exist regarding Defendant Feld.
Defendants are DIRECTED to answer the Second Set of Admissions to
Defendants within 14 days. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond to
Defendant Edwards’ First Set of Interrogatories within 30 days. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff another copy of the Court’s May
17, 2012 Opinion (d/e 72). In addition, the discovery deadline is
extended to July 30, 2012 solely for purposes of answering Defendant
Edwards’ First Set of Interrogatories and for purpose of communicating

Page 7 of 8

with Plaintiff’s seven witnesses. The dispositive motion deadline is
extended to August 13, 2012.
ENTER: June 19, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 8 of 8