Farris v. Kohl et al

Filing 117

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Defendants' Fifth Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests 106 is DENIED as moot; and Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel Discovery Respon ses and Response to Defendants' Fifth Motion for Extension of Time 108 and the matters reserved by the Court from Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Discovery and to Enforce this Court's October 5, 2018 Order 102 are ALLOWED in part. The Department Defendants are directed to provide any missing verifications of answers to interrogatories by February 15, 2019. The Department Defendants are ordered to produce the additional discovery responses calle d for in this Opinion by February 28, 2019. The Court further ALLOWS Plaintiff's requests for fees and expenses incurred in filing her Motions as stated above. The Court directs Plaintiff to file a statement of the fees and expenses incurred in filing her two Motions at issue by February 22, 2019. The Department Defendants are given until March 22, 2019, to respond to the statement of fees and expenses.The existing Revised Scheduling Order 92 in this case provides that fact discovery is t o be completed on or before March 1, 2019, and that the parties have until April 1, 2019 to complete expert discovery. Given the necessity to resolve the numerous discovery disputes between the parties, it appears to the Court that the existing scheduling deadlines are unrealistic and, probably, untenable. Consequently, the Court orders the parties to confer and present a revised discovery schedule to the Court on or before February 28, 2019. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 29 January, 2019 03:58:22 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JACQUELINE FARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC KOHLRUS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv-3279

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Fifth Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests (d/e 106)
(Motion 106), Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and
Response to Defendants’ Fifth Motion for Extension of Time (d/e 108)
(Motion 108), and the matters reserved by the Court from Plaintiff’s Second
Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Discovery and to Enforce
this Court’s October 5, 2018 Order (d/e 102) (Motion 102) (Motions 102
and 108 are collectively referred to as the Farris’ Motions). In order to
resolve the Farris’ Motions, the Court directed Plaintiff Jacqueline Farris to
submit the Defendants’ responses to interrogatories and the definitions
applicable to the interrogatories. Text Orders entered December 17, 2018
and January 16, 2019. Farris has done so. Plaintiff’s Response to Court’s
Page 1 of 33

December 17, 2018 Order (d/e 112) (Interrogatory Responses); and
Plaintiff’s Response to Court’s January 16, 2019 Order (d/e 116)
(Discovery Definitions and Instructions).
Motion 106 asks for additional time to produce the interrogatory
answers from Defendants Norine Ashley and Filipe Zalava. Motion 106 is
DENIED as moot because Ashley and Zalava’s answers have been
submitted to Farris. See Interrogatory Responses, Ex. 1 and 27,
Interrogatory Responses of Ashley and Zalava. For the reasons set forth
below, the Farris’ Motions are ALLOWED in part.
BACKGROUND
Farris alleges that beginning on December 4, 2015, Defendant
Illinois Logan Correctional Center (Logan) Correctional Officer Erik Kohlrus
sexually assaulted Farris while she was an inmate at Logan, and ultimately
Kohlrus raped her on December 28, 2015. (The alleged sexual assaults
and rape are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Rape). First
Amended Complaint (d/e 14), ¶ 1. Kohlrus has been charged in state court
with two counts of custodial sexual misconduct and the matter is pending.
People v. Kohlrus, Logan County, Circuit Court Case No. 2018 CF 85.
Farris brings this action against Kohlrus and 29 other defendants. One
Defendant is the Illinois Department of Corrections (Department or IDOC).
Page 2 of 33

One individual Defendant is Amy Rude, L.C.S.W. Defendant Rude worked
at Logan as an employee of Department contractor Wexford Health
Sources, Inc. (Wexford). The other individual Defendants were employees
of the Department.1 Defendant Christine Brannon was the Warden at
Logan at the time of the Rape. Farris alleges that Defendant Clara Charron
was Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Compliance Manager at Logan at
the time of the Rape.2 Defendant Norine Ashley was a psychologist and
Mental Health Administrator and PREA Compliance Manager at the time of
the Rape. Defendant Lisa Johnson was the back-up to the PREA
Compliance Manager. Farris alleges that Defendant Patrick Keane and
Mike Funk were “Agency” PREA Coordinators.3

Defendants Felipe

Zavala and Alan Pasley were back-ups to the Agency PREA Coordinators.
It is unclear from the Amended Complaint whether Ashley, Johnson,
Keane, Funk, Zavala, or Pasley worked at Logan. Defendant Mark Delia

1
Farris does not specifically allege that Defendants Keane, Funk, Zavala, and Pasley were employed by
the Department or that these Defendants acted under color of law. First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 16-19.
In contrast, Farris specifically alleged that all other individual Defendants except Defendant Rude were
employed by the Department, and that all the other individual Defendants, including Rude, acted under
color of law. Id. ¶¶ 7, 10, 12, 14, 21, 22, and 24. The reason for the distinction is unclear to the Court.
The Illinois Attorney General represents Defendants Keane, Funk, Zavala, and Pasley and identifies them
as employees of the Department. See e.g., Third Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s
Discovery Requests (d/e 89), at 1. The Court, therefore, identifies Keane, Funk, Zavala, and Pasley as
Department employees.
2
Charron denies this allegation. Answer and Affirmative Defenses to First Amended Complaint (d/e 54)
(Individual Department Defendants’ Answer), ¶ 10.
3
Amended Complaint ¶ 16. The term “Agency” is not defined in the Amended Complaint. Keane also
denies that he was the Agency PREA Coordinator in December 2015. Individual Department Defendants’
Answer, ¶ 16.

Page 3 of 33

was the Chief of Investigations and Intelligence at Logan. Defendant Jeff
Gabor was a Case Investigator at Logan. Defendants Kohlrus, Jasmin
Woolfolk, Matthew Mitchey, James Barry, William Lemon, Alex Adams, A.
Ahart, Sean Whelton, Laura Jackson, Jose Rivera, William Roberts, James
Davis, Jennifer Billington, Zachary Sapp, and Dillion Kearney were
Correctional Officers at Logan at the time of the Rape. Defendants
Lieutenant Snyder, Major Locke, and Correctional Officer Jones worked at
the Decatur Correctional Center (Decatur) in May of 2016. Amended
Complaint, ¶¶ 7-24.4 Farris was housed at Decatur at this time.
Farris alleges several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
individual Defendants. Farris alleges that Kohlrus violated her rights to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment and her rights to due process
when he raped her. Farris alleges that the Individual Defendants violated
her rights by committing one or more of the following tortious acts:
establishing policies that caused Kohlrus to commit the Rape; being
deliberately indifferent to Kolhrus’ actions, thereby allowing Kohlrus to
commit the Rape; conspiring with Kohlrus to deprive Farris of her rights;
deliberately deciding not to stop Kohlrus from committing the Rape;
establishing a policy that caused other Defendants to retaliate against her

4

Farris does not allege the first names of Snyder and Jones in the Amended Complaint.

Page 4 of 33

for reporting the Rape; and retaliating against her for reporting the Rape.
Some of the alleged retaliation occurred at Decatur after she was
transferred there in May 2016. First Amended Complaint, Counts I-VII.
Farris also alleges that Defendant Illinois Department of Corrections
(Department) violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Farris
alleges that the Department violated her rights by not allowing her to
participate in the Impact Incarceration Program (Boot Camp) program
because she was a qualified person with a disability. First Amended
Complaint, Counts VIII-IX.5
Farris also alleges three state law claims against Kohlrus for assault,
sexual abuse, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. First
Amended Complaint, X-XII.
All claims against Kohlrus are stayed pending the resolution of the
criminal case against him. Text Order entered September 25, 2018.
Defendant Jackson failed to respond when she was served. The Court
issued an Entry of Default against Defendant Laura Jackson on October 5,
2018. A motion for default judgment against Jackson (d/e 97) is pending.

5

Farris also names John Baldwin, Acting Director of the Department in the caption of the Amended
Complaint, but does not allege any claims against him. The docket also does not show that he was
served or that he waived service.

Page 5 of 33

On June 8, 2018, Farris propounded interrogatories and requests to
produce on the Defendants except Kohlrus. On July 6, 2018 and August 8,
2018, the Department, the individual Defendants except Kohlrus, Jackson,
and Rude (Individual Department Defendants), and Defendant Rude jointly
asked for extensions of time to respond (d/e 69 and 76). On August 30,
2018, Farris filed her first Motion to Compel (d/e 80). On September 21,
2018, the Department and the Individual Department Defendants
(collectively the Department Defendants) asked for a third extension of
time. On October 3, 2018, the Court held a hearing on pending matters.
On October 5, 2018, the Court entered a Revised Scheduling Order (d/e
92). The Revised Scheduling Order directed all parties to respond to
written discovery requests within 30 days of entry of the order. Revised
Scheduling Order, ¶ 3.
On November 5, 2018, the Department Defendants filed their fourth
request for an extension of time to respond to Farris’ discovery requests
(d/e 101). On November 6, 2018, Farris filed Motion 102. Farris asked the
Court to deny the request for additional time, rule that all of the Department
Defendants’ objections to her discovery requests were waived, order the
Department Defendants to respond in full to the discovery request, and
award her fees and expenses. The Court gave the Department Defendants
Page 6 of 33

until November 15, 2018 to file their discovery responses and reserved on
the remainder of Motion 102. Text Order entered November 6, 2018.
On November 15, 2018, the Department Defendants produced their
discovery responses except for answers to interrogatories by Defendants
Ashley and Zavala and verifications of interrogatory answers by several of
the Department Defendants. The Department Defendants asked for a fifth
extension of time (d/e 106) to produce the answers to interrogatories by
Defendants Ashley and Zavala. On November 29, 2018, Farris filed Motion
108. On December 4, 2018, the Department Defendants produced the
interrogatory answers of Defendants Ashley and Zavala. Interrogatory
Responses, Exs. 3 and 27, Interrogatory Response of Ashley and Zalava.
Farris asks the Court to rule that the Department Defendants waived all
objections to the discovery requests and order the Department Defendants
to respond in full.
ANALYSIS
The federal discovery rules are to be construed broadly and liberally.
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); Jeffries v. LRP Publications,
Inc., 184 F.R.D. 262, 263 (E.D .Pa. 1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1) provides that, “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,
not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party and
Page 7 of 33

proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” The party opposing discovery
has the burden of proving that the requested discovery should be
disallowed. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656 (D. Kan.
1999); Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., 132
F.R.D. 204, 207 (N.D. Ind. 1990); Flag Fables, Inc. v. Jean Ann’s Country
Flags and Crafts, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1165, 1186 (D. Mass. 1989).
District Courts have broad discretion in discovery matters. Packman
v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646 (7th Cir. 2001). The Court may
limit the frequency or extent of discovery if: the discovery is unreasonably
cumulative, duplicative, or can be secured from a more convenient and less
expensive source; the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity
to conduct discovery; or if the proposed discovery is outside the scope
permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
In considering the Farris’ Motions, the Court notes that verifications
are missing from some answers to interrogatories. The Court orders the
Department Defendants to provide to Farris proper verifications of all
answers to interrogatories as required by the Rules by February 8, 2019.
The Court also notes that the Department Defendants otherwise
responded to most of Farris’ discovery requests. Farris propounded
interrogatories to each Department Defendant that contained the same or
Page 8 of 33

similar interrogatories. The Department Defendants consistently answered
the interrogatories, except for five of these same or similar interrogatories
(Disputed Interrogatories). The Department Defendants produced
responsive documents to all but 10 document requests (Disputed
Requests). Farris’ request that the Court find that the Department
Defendants’ objections are waived is moot except as to the Disputed
Interrogatories and the Disputed Requests (collectively Disputed
Discovery). The Disputed Discovery requests are the only discovery
requests at issue at this time.
Upon careful review of the parties’ filings and in the exercise of its
broad discretion over discovery matters, the Court finds that the
Department Defendants did not waive their objections to the Disputed
Discovery. Farris sued the Department and 29 of its current and former
employees. Preparing the responses of the Department Defendants took
time. The Department Defendants consistently sought permission from the
Court to extend the response time. On October 5, 2018, the Court directed
the Department Defendants to complete the discovery responses by
November 5, 2018. The Department Defendants requested an additional
extension, and the Court gave them until November 15, 2018. The
Department Defendants produced most of the responses by that date. The
Page 9 of 33

last two interrogatory answers were delivered a month late on December 4,
2018. The Court finds that the Department Defendants were slow in
responding to discovery, but still responded. The waiver of objections will
impose a serious burden on the Department Defendants because several
of the Disputed Discovery requests are overly broad and not proportional to
the needs of the case. The Court, in its discretion, determines that the
Department Defendants’ objections to the Disputed Discovery are not
waived.
The Court addresses each item of Disputed Discovery below.
DISPUTED INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory 3
Interrogatory 3 propounded to each Individual Department Defendant
asks for information about all “Complaints” against the Individual
Defendants who were Correctional Officers at Logan. Farris defined the
term “Complaint:”
“Complaint” shall refer to any complaint, grievance, lawsuit, or
criticism relating in any manner to the job performance of any
Defendant, regardless of the disposition of any resulting inquiry
or investigation (e.g. (un)sustained, (un)founded, or any other
disposition). This includes but is not limited to any personnel or
disciplinary matters, any formal or informal, written or unwritten
grievances, and any legal proceedings.

Page 10 of 33

Discovery Definitions and Instructions, Definitions ¶ 10.6 Farris formulated
the Interrogatories seeking information about Complaints differently
depending on the Individual Department Defendant’s position at the
Department. Interrogatory 3 propounded to Department Defendants
Adams, Ahart, Barry, Billington, Davis, Jones, Kearney, Lemon, Locke,
Mitchey, Rivera, Roberts, Sapp, Snyder, Whelton, and Woolfolk asked:
3. Please state whether there have ever been any Complaints
made against you (including Plaintiff’s Complaint or any other
Complaints that may remain pending), including, but not limited
to, any and all Complaints made by an inmate in the custody of
the IDOC. For all Complaints responsive to this Interrogatory,
please provide the Complaint number and other identifying
information, and describe your understanding of the disposition
of each Complaint alleged against you.
Plaintiff’s Response to Court’s December 17, 2018 Order (d/e 112)
(Interrogatory Answers), Exhibit 1, Defendant Adams’ Response to
Interrogatories, ¶ 3. Interrogatories propounded to Defendants Ashley,
Charron, Delia, Funk, Gabor, Johnson, Keane, Pasley, and Zavala asked:
3. Please state whether there have ever been any Complaints
made against your (sic) or any Individual Defendant, including,
but not limited to, any and all Complaints made by an inmate in
the custody of the IDOC. For all Complaints responsive to this
Interrogatory, please provide the Complaint number or other
identifying information, and describe your understanding of the
disposition of each Complaint.

6

Farris incorporated by reference into each set of interrogatories the definitions and instructions from her
request for production of documents.

Page 11 of 33

Interrogatory Answers, Exhibit 3, Defendant Ashley’s Response to
Interrogatories, ¶ 3. Interrogatory 3 propounded to The Defendant
Department and Individual Department Defendant Brannon asked:
3. Please state whether there have ever been any Complaints
made against any Individual Defendant, including, but not
limited to, any and all Complaints made by an inmate in the
custody of the IDOC. For all Complaints responsive to this
Interrogatory, please provide the Complaint number or other
identifying information, and describe your understanding of the
disposition of each Complaint.
Interrogatory Answers, Exhibit 6, Defendant Brannon’s Response to
Interrogatories, ¶ 3. The Department Defendants object to these
interrogatories, inter alia, as being overly broad and not proportional to the
needs of the case.
The Court sustains the objections in part. The three versions of
Interrogatory 3 are overly broad in that they are not limited to (1) complaints
related either to sexual activity or retaliation for reporting sexual activity,
and (2) complaints about the treatment of inmates at Logan.7 The Court
modifies each version of Interrogatory 3 and requires the Department
Defendants to provide answers concerning Complaints against each
Individual Defendant made from December 4, 2010 to December 31, 2015

7

The instructions incorporated into the Interrogatories limited the questions to Complaints from December
4, 2010 to the end of the litigation. Discovery Definitions and Instructions, Instructions ¶ 10.

Page 12 of 33

which involve (1) sexual activity with inmates at Logan, or (2) retaliation
against inmates at Logan for reporting sexual activity. Farris’ definition of
Complaints, quoted above, applies except to the extent inconsistent with
the Court’s limitations set forth in the preceding sentence.
Farris is bringing § 1983 claims against the Individual Department
Defendants for each such Defendant’s involvement in the Rape or the
subsequent retaliation for reporting the Rape. Farris must show that each
Individual Defendant was personally involved in violating her constitutional
rights in connection with the Rape or the retaliation. See Colbert v. City of
Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017). Discovery of complaints that
an Individual Department Defendant sexually assaulted an inmate or
retaliated against an inmate who reported such an assault may be relevant
or lead to relevant evidence about that Defendant’s intent with respect to
sexual assaults of prisoners or retaliation, including the Rape and
retaliation against Farris.
Farris also alleges that Defendants Brannon, Charron, Ashley,
Johnson, Keane, Funk, Zavala, and Pasley (Policy Defendants) knew that
policies and procedures at Logan caused the Rape and the retaliation.
Amended Complaint, Counts III and VI. To prevail on such a claim with
respect to the Policy Defendants, Farris must show that: (1) each
Page 13 of 33

implemented policies and procedures at Logan that created a substantial
risk that the Rape and retaliation would occur; (2) each personally knew
that such policies and procedures at Logan created a substantial risk that
the Rape and retaliation would occur; and (3) each acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind, “[I]t is enough to show that the defendants knew of
a substantial risk of harm to the inmate and disregarded the risk.” Roe v.
Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Greeno v. Daley, 414
F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005)). Complaints about sexual assaults on
inmates, or retaliation against an inmate for reporting such sexual assaults,
could be relevant evidence or lead to relevant evidence of the elements of
this claim. Such complaints, for example, might lead to evidence of the
existence of the alleged policies and procedures, and may lead to evidence
of the personal knowledge of a Policy Defendant of the effect of the alleged
policies and procedures or the intent of a Policy Defendant with respect to
such policies and procedures. The Court, in its discretion, modifies these
three quoted versions of interrogatory 3 to limit the answers as set forth
above.
This interrogatory is appropriately further limited to complaints about
inmates at Logan since the Rape occurred at Logan. Five years of

Page 14 of 33

Complaints from December 4, 2010 to December 31, 2015 is also more
than sufficient to discover relevant evidence.
Interrogatory 7 or 8
Farris posed the following interrogatory to each Department
Defendant. Farris numbered the Interrogatory either 7 or 8 in each set of
Interrogatories.
8. For each Affirmative Defense pled in this matter, please
describe the entire factual basis or bases supporting those
defenses. The information sought by this Interrogatory is not a
mere recitation of the statutory sections involved. Plaintiffs
request that you provide a detailed description of every fact and
legal basis on which any defense, such as immunity, for
example, is asserted so that Plaintiff may have the opportunity
to investigate by way of additional discovery requests. For
instance, if there is any physical, documentary, or testimonial
evidence which supports any such defense, please identify it
specifically.
Interrogatory Answers, Exhibit 1, Defendant Adams’ Response to
Interrogatories, ¶ 8.
Farris may propound contention interrogatories such as this one.
See Scandaglia v. TransUnion Interactive, Inc., 2010 WL 317518, at *4
(N.D. Ill. January 21, 2010). The Court modifies Interrogatory 8 to require
Department Defendants to provide a sufficient answer to these
interrogatories. A sufficient answer shall set forth a general statement of
the legal and factual basis on which each defense rests and shall disclose
Page 15 of 33

any documents or other evidence not already produced in discovery that
Defendants intend to use to prove each defense. Id. The Court may also
direct that such interrogatories need not be answered until designated
discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The Court directs the Department Defendants to
provide their answers to the quoted interrogatory 14 days before the close
of fact discovery. If, after reading the answers, Farris believes she needs
to conduct additional discovery she may file a motion before the close of
discovery showing good cause to extend discovery.
Interrogatory No. 10
Farris propounded the following Interrogatory No. 10 to each
Individual Department Defendant:
10. Is there any possibility that you will present testimony or
any other evidence at trial relating to your finances or inability to
pay punitive damages? If so, please estimate your net financial
worth (in dollars). Additionally, please describe how that net
worth has been calculated, including your yearly salary, and list
any and all assets of value in excess of $2,500 (including any
ownership of stock or mutual funds).
Interrogatory Answers, Exhibit 1, Defendant Adams’ Response to
Interrogatories, ¶ 10. Farris may be entitled to recover punitive damages
against an Individual Department Defendant if she can prove that such a
Defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference toward Farris’ rights.
Page 16 of 33

See EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824, 835 (7th Cir. 2013); Hardy v.
City of Milwaukee, 88 F.Supp.3d 852, 860 (E.D. Wis. 2015). The wealth of
each Individual Department Defendant may be relevant to the question of
the amount of punitive damages. See In re Aqua Dots Products Liability
Litigation, 270 F.R.D. 322, 324-27 (N.D. Ill. 2010). Providing personal
financial information, however, would impose a serious burden on each
Individual Department Defendant. The Court therefore will require
Individual Department Defendants to answer the quoted Interrogatory No.
10 after the Court rules on motions for summary judgment or after the
expiration of the dispositive motions deadline if no dispositive motion is filed
on behalf of an Individual Department Defendant. Within 21 days after the
entry of an order by the District Court denying any Individual Department
Defendant’s dispositive motion on at least one claim for which punitive
damages may be recovered or the expiration of the dispositive motion
deadline if no dispositive motion is filed by any Individual Department
Defendant, each such Individual Department Defendant must answer
Interrogatory 10. During this 21-day period, any such Individual Defendant
may file a motion for protective order if he or she believes that the evidence
presented at summary judgment indicates that punitive damages would not
be appropriate. In this way, only Individual Defendants who are actually
Page 17 of 33

going to trial and are at risk for liability for punitive damage will be required
to answer the interrogatory and, potentially, produce this confidential
information. The answers to this Interrogatory will be Confidential and
subject to the Protective Order entered November 8, 2018 (d/e 104)
(Protective Order).
Interrogatory 13
Farris propounded the following Interrogatory 13 to Defendants
Charron, Funk, Gabor, Johnson, Keane, and Zavala:
13. Do you contend that Plaintiff was a victim of Kohlrus’ rape
on December 28, 2015?
Interrogatory Answers, Exhibit 7, Defendant Charron’s Response to
Interrogatories, ¶ 13. These Individual Department Defendants objected on
the grounds that the interrogatory was unclear and confusing as written.
These Individual Department Defendants noted that Farris defined the word
“rape” to mean “Defendant Kohlrus’ acts of sexual misconduct against
Plaintiff in the laundry room at Logan Correctional Center on December 28,
2015.” Id.
The Department Defendants’ objections to this interrogatory is
sustained. These Defendants admitted that the Department’s investigation
established that Kohlrus had sexual intercourse with Farris on December
28, 2015. See Individual Department Defendants’ Answer, ¶¶ 1, 34. If so,
Page 18 of 33

Kohlrus committed a Class 3 felony under Illinois law by engaging in such
sexual intercourse. 720 ILCS 5/11-9.2(a). By definition, Farris would have
been the victim of that crime. Given the Individual Department Defendants’
Answer, Farris already knows that these Defendants acknowledge that the
Department’s investigation concluded that Farris was a victim of Kohlrus’
crime. The Interrogatory does not clearly explain what additional
information is sought. The Court sustains the objection.
Interrogatory 15
Farris asked the following Interrogatory 15 to Defendant Brannon and
the Department:
15. Identify each and every individual with any supervisory
authority over Defendants Woolfolk, Mitchey, Barry, Lemon,
Adams, Ahart, Whelton, Jackson, Rivera, Roberts, Davis, Sapp,
Billington, Kearney, and Kohlus (sic) (whether a direct
supervisor, such as a sergeant, or an indirect supervisor, such
as the superintendent, captain, head of IAD, etc.) who learned
that Defendant Kohlrus was accused of having sexual contact
with Plaintiff, and state the name and star number of the
individual(s) who learned this information, what exactly they
learned, how they learned it, when they learned it, and any
actions or steps they took upon learning this information.
Interrogatory Answers, Exhibit 6, Defendant Brannon’s Responses to
Interrogatories, ¶ 15. The Department Defendants object on the grounds
that the request is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the
case. The Department Defendants state that the request would require
Page 19 of 33

interviewing all personnel with any supervisory authority and without
respect to any timeframe.
The Court sustains the objection. Requiring interviews of every
person with any supervisory authority who learned at any time of Farris’
accusation against Kohlrus is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not
proportional to the needs of the case. The Interrogatory would require an
interview of such personnel even if the employee did not find out that
Kohlrus was accused of having sexual contact with Farris until Farris filed
this lawsuit. Moreover, Farris does not allege retaliation claims against any
Logan Correctional Officers or any Logan Correctional Officer supervisory
personnel other than Brannon. See Amended Complaint, Count VII. The
request is not proportional to the needs of the case. The request seems to
be little more than a fishing expedition not calculated to find relevant
evidence. The objection is sustained. Farris can depose Defendant
Brannon to find out what he knew and did.
DISPUTED REQUESTS
Request No. 5
Request No. 5 asks for:
5. Plaintiff’s full and complete Master File or prisoner/inmate
file.

Page 20 of 33

Defendants object that the request is overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Defendants, however, state that they “are willing to produce
relevant and specific portions of Plaintiff’s IDOC master file, subject to
safety and security concerns . . . .” Motion 108, Exhibit B, Department
Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents (Production Response), at 4. The Department Defendants
have legitimate security concerns for producing the entire master file, and
much of the master file is not relevant to the alleged Rape or retaliation.
Some of the file may be relevant, however. The Court, therefore, sustains
the objection in part. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer to
agree on the portions of Farris’ master file that is relevant for discovery
purposes and agree on the method of production that meets the
Department Defendants’ legitimate security concerns. If the parties cannot
agree, Farris may renew this motion, which renewed motion must make a
more precise request that identifies the areas of disagreement specifically.
Such renewed motion must be filed within the time allowed under the
Revised Scheduling Order for filing discovery motions. Revised Scheduling
Order entered October 5, 2018, ¶ 7.

Page 21 of 33

Request No. 10
Request No. 10 asks for, in part:
10. All Documents containing or memorializing
Communications of any kind made between December 4, 2015
and the present relating to: (a) Jacqueline Farris, (b) The
Sexual Assault and Rape of Plaintiff, and/or (c) Plaintiff’s
Complaint. . . .
Production Response, at 6. Defendants produced responsive documents
but withheld a one-page document Bates stamped 364 on a claim of
attorney-client privilege. The parties have not addressed this claim of
privilege in their filings. The Court, therefore, sustains the claim of privilege
at this time without prejudice to Farris challenging the claim of privilege at a
later day. Such a challenge must be filed within the time allowed under the
Revised Scheduling Order for filing discovery motions. Revised Scheduling
Order entered October 5, 2018, ¶ 7.
Request No. 11
Request No. 11 asks for:
11. Full and unredacted copies of insurance policies, contracts,
or indemnification agreements, including any collective
bargaining agreements, that could or might provide coverage to
any of the Defendants for any of the allegations in Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint.
Production Response, at 7. The Department Defendants object on
relevance grounds. The Department Defendants further state, “Defendants
Page 22 of 33

are state employees who are sued for actions relevant to their employment.
Accordingly, defendants may be indemnified pursuant to the State
Employee Indemnification Act, 5 ICLS 350/0.01 et seq.” Id. The objection
is overruled. The Department Defendants were required to produce
insurance or indemnification agreements that may cover their potential
liability. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). The Department Defendants
should have already produced such documents or stated that none exist. If
the Department so stated in their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, they can refer
Farris to that response. If not, the Department Defendants should produce
the requested documents or clearly state that no such policies or
agreements exist.
Request No. 17.
Request No. 17 asks for:
17. All files maintained by IDOC on each Individual Defendant,
including a complete personnel file, disciplinary history, and
employee complaint history.
Production Response, at 9. The Department Defendants object that the
information is confidential by state and federal statute and the request is
overly broad in time and scope and seeks irrelevant evidence. Farris
brings federal claims against the Defendants. Federal law and federal
privileges, therefore, control. Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft,
Page 23 of 33

362 F.3d 923, 925 (7th Cir. 2004). The Department Defendants’ objection
based on state law is overruled.
The Department Defendants also objected based on federal grounds.
The Department Defendants cited a federal statute governing disclosure
information sought by the request. Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 127 (1999). The
statute cited permits disclosure if made pursuant to a court order. Id. The
Court, therefore, may order production.
The Court, however, agrees with Department Defendants that the
request is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case.
Farris asks for all files without any restrictions on the types of information.
See Verser v. Ruiz, 2009 WL 3381009, at *2 (C.D. Ill. October 14, 2009).
The request also has no stated time limit. Under Farris’ Instructions,
therefore, this Request seeks documents from December 4, 2010 to the
end of this litigation. Discovery Definitions and Instructions, Instruction ¶
10.
The Court, in its discretion, sustains the objection in part, modifies the
request, and directs the Department Defendants to produce all records of
disciplinary reports and dispositions for each Individual Department
Defendant from January 2010 to December 31, 2016. Disciplinary reports
may lead to relevant evidence. For example, such reports may lead to
Page 24 of 33

relevant evidence on policies and procedures at Logan. Such reports may
also lead to relevant evidence about an Individual Department Defendant’s
attitude toward treatment of inmates and inmate complaints. The
documents produced in response to this Request, as modified by the Court,
are Confidential and subject to the Protective Order.
Request 21
Request 21 asks for:
21. All Documents sufficient to identify any and all databases
(defined here as collections of electronically stored information)
that have been used or maintained by IDOC within the last ten
years containing information accessible by computer that
record, track, inventory, or compile information regarding
civilian complaints against IDOC correctional officers. For each
such database, please produce Documents sufficient to identify
the name or title of the database, the purpose of the database,
the types or categories of information inputted into the
database, the period of time covered by the information in the
database, the size of the database, and the name(s) of the
applications/software that use the database.
Production Request, at 11. The Department Defendants object that the
request is overly broad, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional
to the needs of the case. The Court agrees and sustains the objections.
The request asks to identify databases used to track electronically stored
information about complaints about all correctional officers throughout the
Department’s facilities and operations. This case concerns the actions of

Page 25 of 33

correctional officers at Logan and Decatur. The request is clearly overly
broad and is not proportional to the needs of the case.
Request 22
Request 22 asks for:
22. All Complaints relating to an allegation of unwanted sexual
contact (e.g., rape, sexual assault) by a correctional officer
against an inmate, where such Complaint was made at any
time between December 1, 2010 through December 31, 2015.
This request includes but is not limited to documents that reflect
(a) whether the Complaints were investigated, and if so, by
whom ; and (b) the disposition of any such investigation,
whether ultimately deemed (un)sustained, (un)founded, or
any other finding.
Production Request at 11-12. The Department Defendants objected on the
grounds that the request was overly broad, sought irrelevant information,
and was not proportional to the needs of the case. The Department
Defendants also objected on the grounds that production would chill future
complaints by inmates and because the production would disclose
confidential medical information about other inmates.
The Court agrees that the request is overly broad and not
proportional to the needs of the case. The Court, in its discretion, modifies
the request and directs the Department Defendants to produce documents
relating to complaints of unwanted sexual contact by a correctional officer
on an inmate at Logan from December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015.
Page 26 of 33

This information may lead to evidence relevant to the claims against the
Policy Defendants regarding the existence of a policy that caused the Rape
or the retaliation. The material produced in response to this Request, as
modified by the Court, will be Confidential subject to the Protective Order.
The Protective Order alleviates the chilling effect of production.
Request 23
Request 23 asks for:
23. All Documents related to the 16 staff-on-offender
allegations of sexual abuse that are identified on Bates PL 17,
including but not limited to witness statements, records created
pursuant to PREA, incident reports, investigation reports and
notes, videos or audio recordings of interviews, medical
records, collected evidence, forensic and other testing records
and results (DNA or otherwise), police reports, handwritten
notes, Communications, scene photographs, photographs of
Plaintiff or other witnesses, audio recordings, and video
recordings.
Production Request, at 12. The Department Defendants object because
the request is vague, overbroad, seeks irrelevant information, unduly
burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. The
Department Defendants also object because the information is confidential,
and disclosure will chill reporting under PREA. The Court sustains the
objection because the request is overbroad and not proportional to the
needs of the case. The response to Request 22, as modified by the Court,
will provide necessary information about other complaints of unwanted
Page 27 of 33

sexual contact. The request is cumulative and not proportional to the
needs of the case.
Request 26
Request 26 asks for:
26. All Reports of Unusual Incidents that were sent to the John
Howards Association regarding staff-on-offender (a) sexual
abuse; and (b) use of excessive force from December 1, 2010
through December 31, 2105.
Production Response, at 13. The Department Defendants object on the
grounds that the request is vague, overbroad, seeks irrelevant information,
unduly burdensome, and disproportional to the needs of the case. The
Court sustains the objection. The request is vague because Farris does
not define the term “Unusual Incidents.” See Discovery Definitions and
Instructions. The request is further not limited to events that occurred at
Logan. The request is vague, overly broad, and not proportional to the
needs of the case.
Request 27
Request 27 asks for:
27. For the time period of December 1, 2010 through December
31, 2015, please produce any and all Documents reflecting or
relating to any instance in which any member or unit of the
Illinois Department of Corrections and/or Logan Correctional
Center has investigated or disciplined a correctional officer for
failing to report misconduct that was or may have been
committed by a fellow officer.
Page 28 of 33

Production Response, at 13. The Department Defendants object on the
grounds that the request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of
the case. The Court sustains the objection in part. The request is not
limited to investigation or discipline of a correctional officer at Logan and
also is not limited to circumstances in which a correctional officer at Logan
failed to report possible officer-on-offender sexual misconduct. Other types
of misconduct are not relevant and misconduct at other facilities is not
relevant. The Court modifies the request and directs defendants to
produce non-privileged documents relating to any investigation or discipline
of any correctional officer at Logan for failing to report officer-on-offender
sexual misconduct that may have occurred at Logan from December 4,
2010 to December 31, 2015.
Request 30
Request 30 asks for:
30. To the Individual Defendants: if you responded to
Interrogatory No. 10 in any way other than an absolute denial,
please produce all Documents relating to your net worth
including, but not limited to, the following:
a. All Documents relating to any assets in your possession with
a value in excess of $2,500.
b. Copies of all monthly statements for the period of December
4, 2015 through the present for all bank accounts, retirement
accounts, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and/or securities in
which you have any ownership interest.
Page 29 of 33

c.
d.
e.

f.
g.

h.
i.

Copies of any insurance policies in which you are either the
beneficiary or have any other ownership interest.
A copy of the deed to your residence . If you do not own your
home, please produce a copy of a current lease.
A copy of the title to your automobile(s) , as well as a copy of
all documentation relating to financing, ownership, and any
equity you may have in said automobile(s).
All Documents relating to any ownership interest in any real
estate, including copies of any deeds or titles.
A copy of your last four pay stubs relating to your
employment in which you are engaged, including but not
limited to the Illinois Department of Corrections.
All Documents relating to any mortgage applications signed
by you in the past four years.
Copies of your last three state and federal tax returns.

Production Response, at 14. The Department Defendants object on the
grounds that the request is premature, overbroad, and not proportional to
the needs of the case. The Court sustains the objection. Those Individual
Department Defendants who remain in the case after summary judgment is
decided, or after the expiration of the dispositive motions deadline without
the filing of a dispositive motion, will answer Interrogatory 10 unless the
Court allows a request for a protective order because the evidence shows
punitive damages would not be appropriate. The answers to Interrogatory
10 will provide a detailed statement of the net worth of the Individual
Department Defendants who may be subject to punitive damages claims.
The answers to that interrogatory under oath will be proportional to the
needs of the case and sufficient for issues related to Farris’ claims for
Page 30 of 33

punitive damages. Producing masses of private financial information is not
necessary and not proportional to the needs of the case. The objection is
sustained.
ATTORNEY FEES
The Court reserved on Farris’ request for attorney fees and expenses
incurred in filing Motion 102. Farris also seeks attorney fees and expenses
in filing Motion 108. The Court has now allowed these Motions in part, and
so, has discretion to apportion fees and expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(C). In this case, Court determines that the Department
Defendants should pay Farris her fees and expenses for filing Motions 102
and 108. The Department Defendants reasonably needed additional time
to prepare discovery responses but requiring five extensions of time from
July to November was not reasonable. Even then, the Individual
Department Defendants did not provide required verifications to answers to
interrogatories. The Court is further convinced that the discovery would not
have been completed in November 2018 without the pressure supplied by
Farris’ Motions. Under these circumstances, Farris should be awarded her
fees and expenses. The Court directs Farris to file a statement of the fees
and expenses incurred in filing Motion 102 and Motion 108 by February 22,

Page 31 of 33

2019. The Department Defendants are given until March 22, 2019, to
respond to the statement of fees and expenses.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Fifth Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests (d/e 106) is
DENIED as moot; and Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses and Response to Defendants’ Fifth Motion for Extension of
Time (d/e 108) and the matters reserved by the Court from Plaintiff’s
Second Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Discovery and to
Enforce this Court’s October 5, 2018 Order (d/e 102) are ALLOWED in
part. The Department Defendants are directed to provide any missing
verifications of answers to interrogatories by February 15, 2019. The
Department Defendants are ordered to produce the additional discovery
responses called for in this Opinion by February 28, 2019. The Court
further ALLOWS Plaintiff’s requests for fees and expenses incurred in filing
her Motions as stated above. The Court directs Plaintiff to file a statement
of the fees and expenses incurred in filing her two Motions at issue by
February 22, 2019. The Department Defendants are given until March 22,
2019, to respond to the statement of fees and expenses.
The existing Revised Scheduling Order (d/e 92) in this case provides
that fact discovery is to be completed on or before March 1, 2019, and that
Page 32 of 33

the parties have until April 1, 2019 to complete expert discovery. Given the
necessity to resolve the numerous discovery disputes between the parties,
it appears to the Court that the existing scheduling deadlines are unrealistic
and, probably, untenable. Consequently, the Court orders the parties to
confer and present a revised discovery schedule to the Court on or before
February 28, 2019.
ENTER: January 29, 2019

s/

Tom Schanzle-Haskins

TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 33 of 33