Fontano v. Godinez et al
Filing
55
OPINION: Plaintiff's renewed motion to compel is granted (d/e 44 ) as provided in paragraph (3). Plaintiff's motion to compel third party production against the IDOC is granted (d/e 52 ). By August 12, 2013, Defendants and/or the IDOC ar e directed to provide to Plaintiff information as provided in paragraph (3). Status Conference set for 9/17/2013 at 03:30 PM by telephone from Springfield (court will place call) before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/12/2013. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 12 July, 2013 09:23:45 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JAMES FONTANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
S.A. GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
12-CV-3042
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff pursues claims arising from his alleged sexual and
physical assault by another inmate in Logan Correctional Center.
Before the Court are Plaintiff's renewed motion to compel against
Defendants and Plaintiff's motion to compel the IDOC to produce
subpoenaed documents.
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense . . . .
For good cause, the court may order discovery of any
matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action. Relevant information need not be admissible at
trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
"The scope of relevance is broad." Dauska v. Green Bay
Page 1 of 9
Packaging, Inc., --- F.R.D. ---, 2103 WL 2088216 * 5 (E.D. Wis.
2013)(quoting in support Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
U.S. 340, 350–51 (1978) (relevance "'has been construed broadly to
encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to
other matter [sic] that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in
the case'"); NDK Crystal, Inc. v. Nipponkoa Ins. Co., Ltd., 2011 WL
43093 n. 3 (N.D. Ill. 2011)(unpublished)(Rule 26(b)(1)'s revision in
2000 still encompasses a "liberal discovery standard."). "District
courts have broad discretion in discovery matters." James v. Hyatt
Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir. 2013).
I. Information regarding the reason for Plaintiff's transfer from
the Pittsfield work camp to Logan Correctional Center is
relevant to Plaintiff's claims and is discoverable.
Plaintiff started his incarceration in Pittsfield work camp, a
minimum security facility, but Plaintiff was later transferred to Logan
Correctional Center, a medium security prison, purportedly as a
result of a "physical roughhousing" incident at Pittsfield. Plaintiff
seeks "information pertaining to the roughhousing incident that
resulted in Plaintiff's transfer from Pittsfield work camp to Logan
Correctional Center." (Pl.'s Mot. Compel at 4). The information
Page 2 of 9
requested includes documents revealing the basis for Plaintiff's
transfer and documents revealing what happened to the other
inmates involved in the incident.
The IDOC Defendants object on grounds of relevance, pointing
out that Plaintiff's Complaint focuses on the failure of Defendants to
properly screen Plaintiff for cellmate placement at Logan, not on the
transfer of Plaintiff from Pittsfield to Logan. Plaintiff counters that
his claim for deliberate indifference encompasses not only the
rooming decision but also the transfer decision. According to
Plaintiff, discovery has revealed that Plaintiff's minimum security
designation was "manually overridden" to allow Plaintiff's transfer to
Logan. Plaintiff asserts that he needs to know all the facts regarding
his transfer in order to determine whether to amend his claims.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff's failure to protect claim as
framed by his Complaint is focused on the rooming decision at Logan,
but the claim also alleges broadly that Defendants "disregarded the
substantial risk that Plaintiff would be injured" at Logan. (Compl. ¶
47). The risk of the injury allegedly began with Plaintiff's transfer to
Logan. Additionally, Defendants' classification procedures are part
Page 3 of 9
of the failure to protect claim, which would include the override of
Plaintiff's minimum security classification allowing Plaintiff's transfer
to Logan. Thus, the information sought is relevant to Plaintiff's
failure to protect claim.
II. Past discipline of Logan inmates for prison sexual assault
and Prison Rape Elimination Act compliance documents are
relevant to Plaintiff's claims and are discoverable.
Plaintiff seeks information on discipline meted out to Logan
inmates for sexual assault or misconduct from January 1, 2008, to
August 5, 2011. The IDOC Defendants object on grounds of
relevance. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that this
information is relevant to the pervasiveness and severity of the risk of
sexual assault in Logan, which is relevant to the deliberate
indifference inquiry.
Plaintiff also seeks documents that IDOC must compile under
the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq.
(PREA), and documents relating to compliance with that Act, see 28
C.F.R. §115 et seq. (setting national standards under the Act). Data
must be collected for every allegation of sexual abuse, 28 C.F.R. §
115.87, and "aggregated sexual abuse data," with personal identifiers
Page 4 of 9
redacted, must be made publicly available. Plaintiff seeks this
information from both the IDOC Defendants and, through a
subpoena, the IDOC.
As with the discipline of Logan inmates for sexual misconduct,
the PREA information could be relevant to the pervasiveness of
sexual assault at Logan, which could be relevant to the deliberate
indifference inquiry.
The IDOC argues that the PREA information sought is
confidential in order to protect inmates' privacy and encourage
inmates to come forward to disclose sexual abuse by inmates. The
Court agrees that inmates who have been sexually assaulted in
prison have privacy interests in keeping that information
confidential. See Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft, 362
F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2004)(medical records of patients who received
late-term abortions not discoverable because non-party patients'
privacy interests outweighed marginal probative value). However,
much of this information is already being produced regarding
documentation of sexual assaults at Logan. A protective order is
also in place which allows documents to be marked "confidential" or
Page 5 of 9
"for attorney's eyes only."
At this point the PREA information will be compelled, with the
redaction of personal identifiers from the documents such as name
and inmate number. If, after reviewing the information, Plaintiff
believes that unredaction of the personal identifiers is necessary,
Plaintiff may file a motion. At that point the Court will be presented
with a more concrete dispute.
III. Plaintiff's requests for information on all lawsuits filed after
January 1, 2008 which allege an IDOC employee's deliberate
indifference to an inmate's risk of sexual assault is overbroad,
cumulative, and its relevance too speculative.
Plaintiff asks "for all lawsuits filed since January 1, 2008 that
allege that any IDOC employee was deliberately indifferent to a risk
that an IDOC inmate would be sexually assaulted by another IDOC
inmate, please produce the complaint, all written discovery
responses provided by any of the IDOC defendants in the action, and
copies of the transcripts of depositions taken of any IDOC defendant
in the action." (Pl.'s 2nd Req. Prod. Docs. at 16). Plaintiff also asks
for the name, case number, and the court presiding over each case.
The IDOC Defendants object to these requests as irrelevant, too
Page 6 of 9
broad, and too burdensome.
Deposition transcripts and discovery responses in all inmate
sexual assault cases arising in Illinois prisons for the last 4 ½ years is
simple too far afield from Plaintiff's claims in this case from a
relevance perspective to justify the burden. Pursuant to this order,
Plaintiff will receive the IDOC's documents relating to the Prison Rape
Elimination Act, which should show the incidence of sexual assault
across IDOC prisons. Plaintiff will also receive documents on sexual
assaults at Logan and disciplines of Logan inmates for sexual
assault. All this information will give a picture of the pervasiveness
of sexual assault in IDOC prisons. If the sexual assaults at Logan
resulted in litigation, Plaintiff may attempt to obtain the discovery
materials in those cases, at which point the Court will be able to
determine if production is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's renewed motion to compel is granted (d/e 44) as
provided in paragraph (3) below, except for Plaintiff's requests
regarding all lawsuits filed against IDOC employees since January 1,
2008 alleging deliberate indifference to an inmate's risk of being
Page 7 of 9
sexually assaulted (Pl.'s 2nd Req. Prod. Doc. # 16; Pl.'s 3rd Interr. # 5).
2) Plaintiff's motion to compel third party production against
the IDOC is granted (d/e 52), except for the medical records of
inmate Saylor. The Court agrees that inmate Saylor's privacy
interest in his medical records should be considered before ordering
the production of the records. Plaintiff may renew his motion to
compel Saylor's medical records after reviewing the investigation
materials regarding Saylor's allegations of sexual assault. The
remaining information will be produced by IDOC as provided in
paragraph (3) below.
3) By August 12, 2013, Defendants and/or the IDOC are
directed to provide to Plaintiff:
a) Information which the IDOC Defendants or the IDOC
have already agreed to provide, including but not limited to
information about: Logan inmates' sexual assault allegations for
the past five years; inmate Kemp's master file; documents relating to
inmate Saylor's allegations of sexual assault; employee time sheets,
records, and logs; polygraph procedures; training documents; and,
security overrides.
Page 8 of 9
b) Information relating to Plaintiff's and other inmates'
transfers from Pittsfield Work Camp to Logan Correctional Center
sought in Plaintiff's second request for production numbered 1-4 and
third set of interrogatories numbered 1 and 2.
c)
Information relating to inmate discipline for sexual
assault or misconduct sought in Plaintiff's second request for
production of documents numbered 17.
d)
Information relating to the Prison Rape Elimination
Act sought in Plaintiff's second request for production of documents
numbered 18.
4)
A status conference is set for September 17, 2013, at 3:30
p.m. by telephone to discuss rescheduling the fact discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines.
ENTERED: July 12, 2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 9 of 9
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?