Quezada v. Pfister et al

Filing 79

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/17/2017: The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to compel 68 and orders Defendants to provide any medical records it has received to Plaintiff, to the extent it has not already done so. The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss 59 as moot in light of Plaintiff's amended complaint. [For further details, see Order.] Mailed notice(kef, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL QUEZADA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY PFISTER, et al.,
Defendant.

No. 16-cv-5058
Judge Amy J. St. Eve

ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, has sued Defendants
alleging that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights by deliberately ignoring his medical
emergency and providing him with inadequate post-treatment medical attention. Here, Plaintiff
has moved to compel Defendants to comply with the agreed qualified protective order [68]. For
the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
On September 18, 2017, the Court entered the “Agreed Qualified Protective Order
Pursuant to HIPPA” (the “Protective Order”), to which the parties had previously agreed. (R. 56;
R. 57.) The Court also granted Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file its Answer in
order for Defendants to seek Plaintiff’s medical records. (R. 58.) The Protective Order provides
as follows: “Nothing in this order authorizes defense counsel to obtain medical records or
information through means other than formal discovery requests, subpoena, depositions, patient
authorization, or through attorney-client communications.” (R. 57, Protective Order ¶ 7.) After
Defendants filed their Answer, Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendants
had obtained Plaintiff’s medical records. (R. 68, Pl.’s Mot. to Compel.) Plaintiff, however, had
not received notice of any formal discovery requests for his medical records. (Id.) Plaintiff
claims that Defendants’ retrieval of his medical records outside of formal discovery procedures
violated the Protective Order and argues that the Court should order Defendants to provide
copies of the medical records they have obtained. (Id.) Defendants argue that the Protective
Order does not bar them from obtaining medical records without formal discovery requests, that
it would be inefficient and impractical for them to use formal discovery requests for medical
records in every inmate case, and that they have provided Plaintiff with the medical records they
have received.
The Court has broad discretion when resolving discovery disputes. See James v. Hyatt
Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir. 2013); Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension
Fund v. Waste Mgmt. of Mich. Inc., 674 F.3d 630, 636 (7th Cir. 2012). Here, Defendants did not
violate the Protective Order when they obtained Plaintiff’s medical records through informal
requests. The Protective Order merely states that it does not authorize Defendants to obtain

medical records outside the formal discovery process, but it does not prohibit Defendants from
doing so. Defendants are represented by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the Attorney
General’s Office may obtain records informally from the Illinois Department of Corrections, a
state agency. See 5 ILCS 350(2)(a) (creating legal obligation for state employees to cooperate
with Attorney General). Further, as Defendants argue, it would be inefficient to require the
Attorney General’s to use formal discovery procedures to obtain records from its own state
agency clients.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the
Protective Order. To the extent that Defendants have not provided any medical records they
have received from the Department of Corrections, however, the Court orders Defendants to
provide those medical records to Plaintiff by November 30, 2017.
Dated: November 17, 2017
______________________________
AMY J. ST. EVE
United States District Court Judge

2