Watkins v. Ghosh, M.D. et al

Filing 164

MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 5/3/2013.Mailed notice(sct, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ERIC WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PARTHA GHOSH, M.D. et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

11 C 1880

MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Wexford
Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) barring Plaintiff Eric Watkins (“Watkins”), his attorney, and
any of Watkins’s expert witnesses from publicly disclosing various internal operating
documents of Wexford. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for protective
order is granted.
Watkins is an inmate at the Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”). In
February 2006, he sustained injuries that occurred when a piece of gym equipment fell
on him. Watkins suffered a herniated disk and has developed a degenerative disk
disease as well as sacral dysraphism.

Watkins brought suit against several defendants for deficient medical treatment
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the constitutional provision against cruel and
unusual punishment. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. Watkins alleges that Wexford,
who employs the medical defendants, has a policy of understaffing Stateville to
prevent prisoners from receiving adequate medical treatment. Watkins also alleges
that Wexford lacks competent medical personnel to treat his illness. Watkins finally
contends that the policymakers at Wexford are aware of the effects of these
deficiencies but have failed to remedy them. Watkins has sought the production of
Wexford’s internal policies, procedures, practices, and/or guidelines for medical
treatment to inmates within the Illinois Department of Corrections. Wexford does not
object to disclosing these documents but wishes to restrict their dissemination so that
the documents do not become publicly available.
This Court may, for good cause, issue an order forbidding or limiting discovery
to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Wexford has submitted an affidavit from
Joseph Ebbitt (“Ebbitt”), the Director of Risk Management. Ebbitt states that public
disclosure of these internal materials would disadvantage Wexford economically
because Wexford’s competitors would be able to access the information contained
therein that is unique to Wexford. Hence, Wexford contends, the materials constitute
trade secrets. Wexford also argues that the materials are privileged pursuant to the
Illinois Medical Studies Act (“IMSA”), 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/8-2101, et seq.
2

The Court need not address the applicability of the IMSA, for Ebbitt’s affidavit is
sufficient to persuade the Court that the disclosure of these materials would render
competitors able to use them to disadvantage Wexford economically. Also, several
other courts in this district have granted similar protective orders in suits involving
Wexford. See Phillips v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 11-cv-2701 (N.D. Ill. Jul.
25, 2012) (Kim, M.J.); King v. Chapman, M.D. et al., No. 09-cv-1184 (N.D. Ill. Nov.
28, 2011) (Schenkier, M.J.); Cumbee v. Ghosh, M.D. et al., No. 11-cv-3511 (N.D. Ill.
Jul. 6, 2012) (Tharp, J.); Hardy v. McCann et al., No. 07-cv-6723 (N.D. Ill. May 12,
2009) (Kennelly, J.); Lippert v. Godinez et al., No. 10-cv-4603 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11,
2012) (Castillo, J.). For the foregoing reasons, Wexford’s motion for protective order
is granted.

_____________________________________
Charles P. Kocoras
United States District Judge

Dated: May 3, 2013 .

3