Amaya v. Butler et al

Filing 132

ORDER re 131 Discovery Dispute Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 7/31/2020. (nmf)

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 132 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #698

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANIEL AMAYA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.

16-cv-1390-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
The Court held a discovery dispute conference in this matter on July 16, 2020. During
the conference, the Court considered disputes that have arisen over the production of certain
documents sought by Plaintiff from Defendants. The Court finds as follows as to each dispute:
Request for Production No. 1
Plaintiff seeks any and all grievances from Menard Correctional Center filed about and
concerning the Special Operations Response Team (“SORT”) from dates before April 1, 2016, not
to exceed three (3) years. Defendants object on the basis of relevancy and proportionality.
Defendants remark that grievances are not maintained by topic and, as such, obtaining three years
of grievances concerning a specific topic would be unduly burdensome. Defendants also express
concern that grievances could potentially include medical or disciplinary information of other
inmates.
During the discovery dispute conference, Plaintiff argued the grievances are relevant to his
claims against Warden Butler, and to a lesser extent, Michael Atchison, insofar as they would
establish that Defendants had notice inmates complained about assaults committed by SORT and
Page 1 of 3

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 132 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #699

that SORT did not wear identification badges so they could carry out assaults without being
identified.
The scope of discovery is set forth in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The language of the Rule provides:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence
to be discoverable.
The Supreme Court has cautioned that the requirement under Rule 26(b)(1) that the
material sought in discovery be “relevant” should be firmly applied, and the district courts should
not neglect their power to restrict discovery where necessary. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153,
177 (1979); see also Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309,
320 (7th Cir. 2003). However, “relevancy” for discovery purposes is construed broadly to
encompass matters that bear on, or reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any
issue in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing Hickman
v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). “Relevance is not inherent in any item of evidence, but
exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and the matter properly provable in the case.”
Miller UK Ltd. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 17 F.Supp.3d 711, 722 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2014) (citation
omitted).
Here, the relevancy of the grievances sought by Plaintiff is limited. Although the Court is
mindful that there may be grievances setting forth issues with SORT similar to the issues in this
lawsuit, and Butler may have reviewed said grievances, there is no certainty that any such
Page 2 of 3

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 132 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #700

grievances exist. Given the speculative and limited relevance of the grievances sought, the Court
finds the burden on Defendants to produce the same outweighs the needs of the request in this
instance. Defendants’ objection to this request is SUSTAINED.
Request for Production No. 2
Plaintiff seeks any and all grievances filed against Defendant John Burrows for sexual
assault and/or sexual abuse which were found unsubstantiated or substantiated occurring on or
before April 1, 2016, not to exceed three (3) years. Defendants object on the basis of relevancy
and proportionality.
Defendants’ objection is SUSTAINED. The relevancy of the grievances sought to be
produced is limited in relation to any claim or defense in this matter and, the Court notes there is
some indication that Plaintiff is not confident Burrows was properly identified as the officer who
conducted the strip search at issue. Further, the Court finds the relevancy of any such grievances
is outweighed by the burden on Defendants to produce the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 31, 2020
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3