Brooks v. HSHS St. Elizabeth's Hospital et al

Filing 159

ORDER: The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 148 Motion to Compel St. Elizabeth's Hospital to Produce Full and Complete AED Device History Records. The 150 Motion to Compel St. Elizabeth's Hospital to Answer Discovery Due After the Discovery Deadline is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/1/2020. (mlp)

Case 3:18-cv-00563-NJR Document 159 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #1453
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MONIQUE BROOKS,
as Independent Administrator of the
Estate of Roxanne Bradford,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:18-CV-563-NJR

HSHS MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,
LINDSAY R. O’NEIL,
ST. ELIZABETH’S HOSPITAL OF THE
HOSPITAL SISTERS OF THE THIRD
ORDER OF ST. FRANCIS, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court are two motions to compel filed by Plaintiff Monique
Brooks directed toward Defendant St. Elizabeth’s Hospital (Docs. 148, 150). St. Elizabeth’s
Hospital filed timely responses in opposition (Docs. 152, 153). The Court now rules as
follows.
I.

Motion to Compel St. Elizabeth’s Hospital to Produce Full and Complete AED
Device History Records
With this motion, Brooks seeks to compel full and complete device history records

for the AED or defibrillator used during the code event that preceded decedent Roxanne
Bradford’s anoxic brain damage and premature death (Doc. 148). Brooks states that a
central fact in this case is the failure or malfunction of an AED device during the code
event. Thus, the device’s history is relevant and material to the issue of notice to
Defendant. To date, however, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital has produced only work orders for
Page 1 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00563-NJR Document 159 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #1454
the single year preceding and including the code event for the subject AED. Brooks states
that the device history for this AED is within the equipment database and easily
accessible to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. She therefore asks the Court to compel St.
Elizabeth’s Hospital to produce the complete AED device history dating back to its
purchase date of April 22, 2009, about six years prior to the code event.
In response, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital notes that it produced one years’ worth of
records for the subject AED, despite its denial that any AED malfunction occurred during
the code event. Although one doctor authored a note stating that an AED malfunctioned,
there is no other evidence supporting the fact that a malfunction occurred. Thus, its
position that the subject AED did not malfunction is reasonable. St. Elizabeth’s Hospital
further argues that Brooks did not cite to any authority supporting her contention that
she is entitled to all work orders for the AED since its purchase, nor has she demonstrated
that the work orders from the date of purchase are relevant to whether the AED
malfunctioned on February 16, 2015.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(1) permits a party to 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.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).
Here, the information sought by Brooks certainly is relevant to her theory that an
AED used during Bradford’s code event failed or malfunctioned. Records for that AED

Page 2 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00563-NJR Document 159 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #1455
device may also be relevant to demonstrating whether St. Elizabeth’s Hospital was on
notice of any issues regarding the device. Given that the records she seeks are easily
accessible by St. Elizabeth’s Hospital and there appears to be little or no expense involved,
the Court agrees that St. Elizabeth’s should be required to produce more than one years’
worth of work order records. On the other hand, Brooks has not provided any
explanation as to how all records from the date of purchase are relevant to whether the
AED malfunctioned on February 16, 2015.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion to
Compel St. Elizabeth’s Hospital to Produce Full and Complete AED Device History
Records (Doc. 148). St. Elizabeth’s Hospital is ORDERED to produce the complete AED
device history records for the subject AED for three years prior to the code event on
February 16, 2015, within 14 days of this Order.
II.

Motion to Compel St. Elizabeth’s to Answer Discovery Due After the Discovery
Deadline
Brooks also asks the Court to compel St. Elizabeth’s Hospital to respond to

discovery after the discovery deadline (Doc. 150). On July 24, 2020, Brooks submitted her
First Request for Admissions and Fifth Request for Production and Interrogatories to St.
Elizabeth’s. She asserts this discovery is relevant and material to the issue of the AED
failure or malfunction. Specifically, Brooks has asked St. Elizabeth’s Hospital for:
production of manufacturer’s specifications, the owner’s/user’s manual, and any
warranty for the AED device; interrogatories related to the battery life for the AED device,
whether it was rechargeable, the expiration date of the battery, and whether the AED is
still in use for patients at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital; and admissions related to when the

Page 3 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00563-NJR Document 159 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #1456
batteries were changed on the AED device.
In response, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital notes that the discovery deadline was
extended to August 7, 2020, in light of the Court’s Second Amended Administrative
Order No. 261 (see Doc. 147). Because the Scheduling and Discovery Order requires
discovery to be served by a date that allows the served party 30 days in which to respond
by the discovery cut-off date, the requests served by Brooks were untimely. Moreover,
St. Elizabeth’s argues, Brooks has failed to establish good cause to conduct discovery
beyond the deadline. The requests, which concern the subject AED device, concern facts
of which Brooks was aware at the outset of the litigation. Finally, St. Elizabeth’s notes that
Brooks previously opposed St. Elizabeth’s motion to extend the initial discovery
deadline, which is now contrary to her position that the deadline should be further
extended.
The Court agrees with St. Elizabeth’s Hospital that the discovery was not served
in a timely manner. Furthermore, Brooks has provided no good cause for serving the late
discovery or for extending the deadline further. After reviewing the discovery requests,
it appears that Brooks could have sought the information and documents at a much
earlier date. Therefore, the Motion to Compel St. Elizabeth’s to Answer Discovery Due
After the Discovery Deadline (Doc. 150) is DENIED.
This matter will be set for trial by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 1, 2020
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 4 of 4