Sultan v. Duncan et al

Filing 185

COURT'S SUMMARY ORDER re 174 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents Relating to Robert Esther filed by Charles Sultan. For the reasons stated on the record and contained in this order the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 5/19/2020. (jmj)

Case 3:17-cv-00418-MAB Document 185 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #1394

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES SULTAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEPHEN DUNCAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-CV-418 -MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
This case came before the Court on February 19, 2020 for a discovery dispute
conference (see Doc. 168). Plaintiff Charles Sultan (“Plaintiff”) is represented by Edward
Dowd, Jr., Jeffrey Hoops, and Carlos Marin. The IDOC Defendants are represented by
Assistant Attorney General Jeanine Armstrong.
At the discovery dispute conference, the Court ruled on the record for nearly all
of the disputed discovery issues, but ordered supplemental briefing on one specific
matter: the discoverability of certain categories of documents within the master file of
inmate Robert Esther, who Plaintiff claims attacked him. The categories of documents at
issue implicate the mental health and treatment of Mr. Esther. Plaintiff submitted his brief
in the form of a motion to compel on February 28, 2020 (Doc. 174). The IDOC Defendants
filed their response on March 4, 2020 (Docs. 175-76).
After reviewing the briefs and the legal authorities cited therein, the Court set the
matter for a follow-up hearing to ask the parties some additional questions (Doc. 184).
Page 1 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-00418-MAB Document 185 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #1395

Plaintiff’s motion, and his position, relies heavily on McCroy v. Illinois Dep't of Corr., No.
02-CV-3171, 2006 WL 8077033 (C.D. Ill. May 12, 2006). The IDOC Defendants relied
generally on HIPAA and 740 ILCS 110 et seq. (Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities Confidentiality Act). The IDOC Defendants’ objections to the requested
discovery are blanket objections that do not appear to demonstrate a working knowledge
of the specifics of the documents they seek to avoid producing (See Doc. 174-1, p. 4).
In McCroy, the plaintiff sought the production of “[t]he complete IDOC file for the
other inmate involved in the September 23, 2004 incident.” McCroy, 2006 WL 8077033 at
*4. As a general matter, the Court in McCroy noted the fact the master file “is required to
be kept confidential under this statute [730 ILCS 5/3-5-1(b)] does not prohibit disclosure
to a party pursuant to a court order, and documents in master files have been produced
in civil and criminal cases, including by prison officials when needed for their defense.”
Id. at *2 (citing Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171, 1175 (7th Cir. 1989) (rejecting defendants’
argument that documents in master file supported discipline); De La Paz v. Peters, III, 959
F.Supp. 909, 911 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (defendants relied on master file as exhibit in summary
judgment motion); Zimmerman v. State of Illinois, 1994 WL 868068, at *7 (Ill. Ct. Cl. 1994)
(not reported in N.E.2d)(recounting information of inmate's history of violence in master
file); Dykes v. Morris, 85 F.R.D. 373 (N.D. Ill. 1980); People v. West, 697 N.E.2d 1216, 1220
(Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (“master record file is a public record and thus may be admitted under
an exception to the hearsay rule”)). Ultimately, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion
to compel with regard to this request, reasoning that the “master file of the inmate who
allegedly attacked the plaintiff may hold evidence relevant to that inmate’s history of
Page 2 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-00418-MAB Document 185 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #1396

violence, and thus to the defendant’s knowledge of that inmate’s violent propensities (if
any).” McCroy, 2006 WL 8077033, at *4 (citing Zimmerman, 1994 WL 868068, at *7). In so
doing, the court directed the production of the master file for the other inmate with an
attorney’s eyes only designation and noted that it would entertain an in camera review if
issues came up with specific documents in the production. McCroy, 2006 WL 8077033, at
*4.
As provided in detail on the record at the May 19, 2020 hearing, the Court finds
the reasoning, analysis, and ruling in McCroy instructive here. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTED the motion to compel (Doc. 174), and DIRECTED the parties to meet and
confer regarding the production of documents. Any documents produced pursuant to
the Court’s Order will be designated as “attorney’s eyes only” and produced pursuant to
an agreed protective order prepared by the parties. The undersigned questioned counsel
for the IDOC Defendants on whether there were any specific documents, categories of
documents, or sub-categories of documents that might require in camera review but the
IDOC Defendants were unable to provide an answer at that time. Accordingly, if in the
course of meeting and conferring on the production, certain documents responsive to the
Plaintiff’s request present security concerns or there are other legitimate reasons for
nondisclosure (that are not addressed by the current restrictions in place), the parties may
request an in camera review. However blanket objections or general assertions will not
suffice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 19, 2020
Page 3 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-00418-MAB Document 185 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #1397

s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4