Watford v. Harner et al

Filing 78

Order: The 69 Motion to Compel Evidence filed by Watford is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Vanderhove SHALL respond to Interrogatory #1, as now clarified, by May 4, 2020. Defendants Opolka and Meininger SHALL respond to Interrogatory #6 by May 4, 2020, and Defendant Meininger SHALL respond to Interrogatory #7 by May 4, 2020. Defendants are further ORDERED to produce document requests #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 in accordance with this Order by May 4, 2020. The 71 Motion for Discove ry and the 74 Motion to Produce Deposition filed by Watford are DENIED. The Motions for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Docs. 73 and 76 ) are GRANTED. Defendants' responses to Watford's First Request for Admissions are due April 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to modify the docket sheet in accordance with this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/19/2020. (jrj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARLON L. WATFORD,
#R15678,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 18-cv-01313-NJR

v.
HOWARD HARNER,
JIM WINTERS,
ROGER KERN,
SCOTT OPOLKA,
GUSTAVE VANDERHOVE,
ROGER HOLT,
RICHARD HARRINGTON,
KIMBERY BUTLER,
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
BILLY ROSE,
DAVID SEALS,
THEODORE MEININGER,
LLOYD HANNA,
JANE DOE, and
ROBERT DELRE, 1
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Marlon Watford, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), filed this case alleging deprivation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Watford claims that Defendants have violated his religious rights protected
by the First and Fourteenth Amendment and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act by depriving him of the Id-ul-Fitr feast, the opportunity to

Now that Defendants have identified themselves by their proper names in their answers to the Complaint
(Docs. 29 and 56), the Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket sheet to reflect Defendants’ proper
names: Howard Harner, Jim Winters, Roger Kern, Scott Opolka, Gustave Vanderhove, Roger Holt, Richard
Harrington, Kimberly Butler, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Billy Rose, David Seals, Theodore Meininger, Lloyd Hanna,
and Robert Delre.
1

Page 1 of 10

participate in the Ramadhan fast, and burdening the practice of his religion by making
substitutions to his food tray. (Doc. 5, p. 5).
Several motions are now before the Court: Motion to Compel Evidence (Doc. 69),
Motion for Discovery (Doc. 71), and Motion to Produce Deposition (Doc. 74) filed by
Watford. Defendants have also filed two motions for extension of time to complete
discovery. (Docs. 73 and 76).
MOTION TO COMPEL EVIDENCE
Watford claims that Defendants have provided evasive and incomplete answers
to his interrogatories and deficient documentation to his requests for the production of
documents. (Doc. 69, p. 2). He asks the Court to compel Defendants to fully answer
interrogatories #1, 3, 6, and 7 and to comply fully with his production of document
requests #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. (Id. at p. 11). Watford also includes a certification that he
attempted to confer with Defendants regarding the disputes prior to filing this motion in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). (Id at p. 20). Defendants filed a
reply in opposition arguing that Watford has been provided with the information as
requested and that Defendants should not be forced to produce additional documents or
information because he does not agree with the information provided. (Doc. 72). The
Court will review each interrogatory and document production request in turn.
Interrogatory #1
Watford asks Defendant Vanderhove, “Is it IDOC/Menard serving size standard
that one ‘serving’ of peanut butter is one ounce, one point five ounces, or two ounces,
etc.?”
Defendant Vanderhove answers, “The serving size standard for one package of
Page 2 of 10

peanut butter is three quarters of an ounce.”
Watford argues that this answer is evasive because he wanted to know the
recommended daily allowance serving size for a meal and not the size of the package.
The Court does not find this answer incomplete or evasive given the question that
was asked. To the extent that Watford was seeking information regarding what serving
of peanut butter is recommended or prescribed for a meal at Menard, that was not stated
in the interrogatory. (See Doc. 69, p. 15). The Court is unclear, however, why Defendant
Vanderhove did not modify his answer after Watford contacted Defendants’ counsel on
January 21, 2020, notifying Defendants of the confusion. (Id. at p. 20). Accordingly,
Defendant Vanderhove is directed to respond to the interrogatory as now clarified by
May 4, 2020.
Interrogatory #3
Watford asks Defendant Howard Harner, Lloyd Hanna, and Jim Winters, “is it
IDOC/Menard protocol that offenders who transfer from another institution will be
permitted to participate in the Holy Month of Ramadhan Fast at the Menard Correctional
Center?”
Defendant Jim Winters answers, “I am unaware of the process for how the
Chaplain decides to pre-approve an offender to be permitted to participate in the Holy
Month of Ramadan. However, I would receive a list from the Chaplain with a list of
names of offenders who were preapproved and those offenders would be added to the
list to meet their dietary needs.”
Watford argues that this statement is untrue because dietary staff is provided a
memo informing them that transferring inmates will be permitted to participate in the
Page 3 of 10

Fast. A disagreement with Defendant Winters’s answer, however, is not “the proper
subject of a motion to compel.” Hashim v. Ericksen, 14-cv-1265, 2016 WL 6208532, at *1
(E.D. Wisc. 2016). As such, Watford’s request to compel further response for
Interrogatory #3 is denied.
Interrogatory #6
Watford asks Defendants Theodore Meininger and Scott Opolka, “On Tuesday,
Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday for lunch meal does the kosher religious diet trays are
served with a cold tray filled with a full salad, salad dressings, crackers, vegetable, and
fruit?”
Defendant Scott Opolka answers, “I am not sure of the answer to this question. I
do not currently work in the inmate’s kitchen which is the area that prepares the diet
trays for the entire institution.”
Defendant Theodore Meininger answers, “I do not know the answer to the
question. I do not prepare lunch menus.”
Watford argues that both defendants answering have access to that information
and are trained in the preparation and serving of food trays. A “good faith response to
an interrogatory is that the respondent does not know the information asked, and cannot
make reasonable efforts to learn the information[.]” Vukadinovich v. Hanover Cmty. Sch.
Corp., No. 13-cv-144, 2014 WL 667830, at *5 (N.D. Ind. 2014). Furthermore, “under the
Federal Rules, it is not sufficient for a party to blankly state it cannot answer an
interrogatory…If a party genuinely does not know an answer, it must indicate that the
information is unavailable. If only some information is available, that information must
be provided, but a prefatory statement may be used to place the answer in context.” Bell
Page 4 of 10

v. Woodward Governor Co., No. 03-c-50190, 2005 WL 289963, at *5 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Although
Defendants state that they do not know the information asked because they do not
prepare the meals, they have failed to explain why they, as staff at Menard, could not
obtain this information with reasonable effort. The Court orders Defendants Opolka and
Meininger to answer Interrogatory #6 by May 4, 2020, by written response or under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) or explain why they are unable to obtain the
information necessary to fully respond. Each defendant’s answer must include a detailed
explanation of his efforts to obtain the information and the reason his efforts were not
successful.
Interrogatory #7
Watford asks Defendant Theodore Meininger, “What is the protein count and
overall nutrition facts for one serving of Tofu on the LACTO-OVO-VEG religious diet
tray?”
Defendant Theodore Meininger answers, “I do not know.”
Watford argues this answer is evasive as a food supervisor has a duty to provide
such information during the food serving line in the dining hall and the requested
information is on the box of the tofu packaging. Again, “personal lack of knowledge does
not excuse [a party’s] failure to answer the interrogatories.” Jones v. Syntex Lab., Inc. No.
99-c-3113, 2001 WL 1338987, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 2001). The Court grants Watford’s motion to
compel a response to Interrogatory #7. Defendant Meininger is ordered to answer
Interrogatory #7 by May 4, 2020. If Defendant Meininger cannot obtain the information
necessary to fully respond, his answer must include a detailed explanation of his efforts
to obtain the information and the reason his efforts were not successful.
Page 5 of 10

Document Request #1
Watford states he requested the Therapeutic Diet Menu and Defendants only
provided him a “useless menu” and cites to exhibit 10 included in his motion. (Doc. 69,
pp. 7, 49). Exhibit 10 is in fact a copy of the Therapeutic Menu. According to Watford’s
Interrogatories and Production of Documents submitted to Defendants, however, he
requested a copy of IDOC’s Therapeutic Diet Manual. (Id. at p. 14). As there appears to be
confusion over the document requested, Defendants are directed to respond to the
request for a copy of a Therapeutic Diet Manual by May 4, 2020.
Document Request #2
Watford also requested a copy of any and all documentation depicting the weight,
nutrition facts, and ingredient list of the individual packet of Lucky Peanut Butter. He
states that Defendants only gave him a copy of Lucky Peanut Butter’s ingredient list (see
Id. at p. 18), and have not turned over any nutritional information. As Defendants have
not provided an explanation for why the nutritional information of Luck Peanut Butter
was not provided, the Court grants the motion to compel the production of document
request #2. Defendants shall produce the document requested by May 4, 2020.
Document Request #3
Watford askes for all documentation setting the menu for 2017, 2018, and/or 2019,
including menus, food served log sheets, kosher tray injunctive order, and the protocol
for kosher trays. He states he has not been provided with the kosher tray food log sheets
concerning the food that is served. According to the exhibits he has included with his
motion, Watford received copies of a kosher tray menu and guidelines sheet (Doc. 69,
p. 48), therapeutic menus for fiscal year 2013 (Id. at p. 49-55), therapeutic diet order form
Page 6 of 10

(Id. at p. 56), therapeutic diet monthly compliance report (Id. at p. 57), and vegan master
menu for fiscal year 2013 (Id. at p. 63-67). It does not appear Defendants have provided
Watford copies of the kosher food log sheets. In their response, Defendants do not raise
an objection to this request, but simply state they have produced all documents related
to his allegations. (Doc. 72, p. 1). It is not clear by this statement whether Defendants have
attempted to locate the log sheets and why they could not obtain them. Watford’s motion
to compel production of document #3 is therefore granted. Defendants shall respond to
the request and provide Watford copies of kosher tray food log sheets concerning food
served for 2017, 2018, and 2019, as requested by May 4, 2020.
Document Requests #4 and #5
Watford requested copies of documentation reflecting nutrition facts, weight, and
serving size for all five kosher trays, such as labels and package box side panels and the
nutrition facts of the salad served on the LACTO-OVO-VEG religious diet trays. He states
he was not provided the nutrition facts for the prepackaged kosher trays or the LACTOOVO-VEG diet trays. (Doc. 69, p. 9). Defendants do not raise an objection to providing
nutritional information or a reason for why these documents were not produced.
Accordingly, Watford’s motion to compel production of document request #4 and #5 is
granted to the extent he is requesting the nutrition facts and information for the
prepackaged kosher trays and the LACTO-OVO-VEG religious diet trays. Defendants are
ordered to provide Watford any and all documents that specify the specific nutritional
information of each item in the prepackaged kosher trays and the LACTO-OVO-VEG
religious diet trays by May 4, 2020.

Page 7 of 10

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
Watford has also filed a motion for discovery arguing that Defendants have failed
to fully comply with his discovery requests and have information and relevant
documents that are pertinent and essential to his claim. (Doc. 71). Defendants’ counsel
states that, as an oversight, initial disclosures were not sent to Watford, but would be sent
by March 13, 2020. Counsel states that Watford sent a discovery request on October 24,
2019, which was responded to on November 22, 2019, and he sent an additional request
on February 24, 2020, and Defendants have until March 25, 2020, to respond. (Doc. 75).
As Watford has been provided initial disclosures and his motion to compel evidence is
granted in part, the Court will deny this motion at this time. Watford may file a new
motion to compel if Defendants fail to respond to further requests for the production of
documents. In the motion Watford must specify what documents he seeks that
Defendants failed to produce. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv). Watford must
again include a certification that he attempted to resolve the issue with Defendants in
good faith prior to filing the motion.
MOTION TO PRODUCE DEPOSITION FOR PHOTOCOPYING
Watford argues that following his deposition counsel for Defendants informed
him that he would be allowed to photocopy his deposition testimony at his facility, but
then later told him he would have to contact the court reporter for a copy. (Doc. 74). He
claims that counsel informed staff at Menard legal office to prohibit him from copying
his deposition at the law library. He asks the Court to compel Defendants’ counsel to
produce the deposition for inspection and photocopying. Counsel for Defendants filed a
response denying that she told Watford he would be allowed to photocopy his deposition
Page 8 of 10

at the facility or that she told Menard staff to deny him access to the law library. (Doc.
77).
“An inmate is not constitutionally entitled to a free copy of documents prepared
at the expense of another.” Mounson v. Chandra, No. 04-cv-365, 2009 WL 1209045, at *1
(S.D. Ill. 2009) (citing United States v. McCollum, 426 U.S. 317 (1976)). Watford’s deposition
was taken by Defendants, and he was informed in a letter by Defendants’ counsel on how
he can pay and receive a copy. (See Doc. 74, p. 9). Because he is not entitled to a free copy
of the entire transcript, the motion is denied.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
Defendants have filed two motions for extension of time requesting additional
time to respond to Watford’s First Request for Admission (Docs. 73 and 76). The requests
for an extension are granted. Defendants shall have until April 30, 2020, to file their
responses to Watford’s First Request for Admissions.
DISPOSITION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Evidence (Doc. 69) filed by
Watford is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Vanderhove SHALL
respond to Interrogatory #1, as now clarified, by May 4, 2020. Defendants Opolka and
Meininger SHALL respond to Interrogatory #6 by May 4, 2020, and Defendant Meininger
SHALL respond to Interrogatory #7 by May 4, 2020.
Defendants are further ORDERED to produce document requests #1, #2, #3, #4,
and #5 in accordance with this Order by May 4, 2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Discovery (Doc. 71) and the
Motion to Produce Deposition (Doc. 74) filed by Watford are DENIED. The Motions for
Page 9 of 10

Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Docs. 73 and 76) are GRANTED. Defendants’
responses to Watford’s First Request for Admissions are due April 30, 2020.
Finally, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to modify the docket sheet in accordance
with footnote 1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 19, 2020
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 10 of 10