Lewis et al v. Cain et al

Filing 388

RULING granting 376 Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions. The Court will exclude any evidence or documents not produced in discovery unless such documents were attached to pleadings filed into the record prior to the class certification hearing. The Court declines to award any monetary sanctions. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 1/12/2018. (SGO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

15-318-SDD- RLB

BURL CAIN, ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions1 and
Supplemental Memorandum2 filed by Plaintiffs. Defendants have filed an Opposition3 to
this motion, to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply.4 For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion
shall be granted.
I.

BACKGROUND & PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
This suit is brought by several inmates incarcerated at the Louisiana State

Penitentiary (“LSP”). Plaintiffs claim that the medical care provided at LSP violates the
Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs also claim that
the medical treatment of disabled inmates at LSP violates the Americans with Disabilities
Act5 and the Rehabilitation Act.6
Plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a class action,7 and the Court held a class
certification hearing on November 2, 2017, where the Parties presented argument and

1

Rec. Doc. No. 376.
Rec. Doc. No. 381.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 382.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 383-4.
5
42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
6
29 U.S.C. § 701.
7
Rec. Doc. No. 133.
2

43558 
Page 1 of 5 

evidence regarding class certification.8 Plaintiffs objected at the hearing to several of
Defendants’ hearing exhibits, arguing that the documents had been requested but not
produced during discovery.

Plaintiffs now move for evidentiary sanctions under Rule

37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Defendants’ failure to supplement their
discovery responses and disclose the requested healthcare directives prior to the class
certification hearing.
Initially, Plaintiffs claimed that, while Defendants produced a sequence of ninetyfive (95) LSP healthcare directives, including them on the joint exhibit list following the
class certification hearing, Defendants failed to produce sixty-one (61) of those directives
during discovery despite the fact that such documents were responsive to Plaintiffs’
Request for Production.9 After some investigation, Plaintiffs filed a Supplement10 to the
motion indicating that ten (10) directives had been produced, but noted that, “it appears
that some 46 directives were never produced in any form, and approximately 52
directives- more than half – were not produced during document discovery.”11
Defendants oppose the motion, claiming that all LSP healthcare directives were
contained in the LSP Healthcare Manual which was reviewed by Plaintiff’s experts, and
purportedly all directives were turn over to Plaintiffs on a disc. Defendants contend they
were unaware that Plaintiffs disputed receipt of the directives as evidenced by their
attempt to introduce the documents at the hearing. Defendant also contend that Plaintiffs
should have known well in advance of the class certification hearing that they may have

8

Rec. Doc. No. 375.
Rec. Doc. No. 376-1, p. 1.
10
Rec. Doc. No. 381.
11
Id. at p. 3 (emphasis original).
9

43558 
Page 2 of 5 

been lacking some of the directives due to the “fairly obvious gaps in the ordinal sequence
of the Directives Plaintiffs admit that they received.”12 Defendants claim that, while some
of the directives were attached to e-mails as drafts, “there is no appreciable difference
between those drafts and the version included in Defendants’ exhibits.”13 Nevertheless,
Defendants acknowledge that twenty-five (25) directives14 cannot be “specifically
accounted for” in the course of discovery, but claim they believe the directives were
produced on the disc, and if they were not, this should have been discovered by Plaintiffs
prior to the class certification hearing.15 Defendants contend sanctions are unwarranted
in this case because Plaintiffs have suffered no prejudice as many of the undisclosed
documents “arguably have no bearing upon any of the issues” in this case, and any
discovery failures were inadvertent and not willful or in bad faith.16
In reply, Plaintiffs maintain that there is no evidence that Defendants produced
forty-eight (48) of the ninety-five (95) directives in final form. Plaintiffs take issue with
Defendants’ claim that these purported omissions are meaningless because Defendants
were nevertheless obligated to produce them as they were responsive to discovery
requests. Plaintiffs also contend the Healthcare Manual was not produced in discovery
as required; rather, Plaintiffs obtained the manual via a Public Records Act Request, and
the copy Plaintiffs obtained did not include many of the missing directives or contain any
reference thereto. Finally, Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ attempt to “shift their burden of

12

Rec. Doc. No. 382, p. 3.
Id.
14
13.002, 13.005, 13.021, 13.022, 13.026, 13.032, 13.040, 13.042, 13.049, 13.056, 13.057, 13.058,
13.059, 13.065, 13.066, 13.069, 13.070, 13.071, 13.072, 13.077, 13.080, 13.086, 13.089, 13.090, and
13.092.
15
Rec. Doc. No. 382 at p. 4.
16
Id. at pp. 5-7.
13

43558 
Page 3 of 5 

production” by claiming that Plaintiffs should have realized long ago that several directives
were missing. Plaintiffs further argue that the modest sanctions they are seeking do not
require a showing of bad faith or willful nondisclosure.
II.

RULE 37(c) SANCTIONS
Rule 37(c) provides: “If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as

required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness
to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was
substantially justified or is harmless.”17 A district court has wide discretion in determining
whether exclusion is warranted.18 In evaluating the propriety and necessity for exclusion
of evidence pursuant to Rule 37(c), the Court looks to: “(1) the importance of the evidence;
(2) the prejudice to the opposing party of including the evidence; (3) the possibility of
curing such prejudice by granting a continuance; and (4) the explanation for the party's
failure to disclose.”19
Applying these factors to the situation presented, the Court finds that modest
sanctions are warranted for Defendants’ nondisclosure. First, Defendants’ argument that
many of the undisclosed directives are irrelevant to the case is without merit as it is not
Defendants’ place to make such a determination.

When faced with a Request for

Production, Defendants had an obligation to disclose all responsive documents. The
Court also rejects Defendants’ claim that Plaintiffs have suffered no prejudice. Plaintiffs’
expert did not have these directives to consider in his report and testimony at the

17

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).
CQ, Inc. v. TXU Min. Co., L.P., 565 F.3d 268, 277 (5th Cir. 2009)
19
Texas A & M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 2003); Patterson v.
Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F. App'x 367, 369 (5th Cir. 2014).
18

43558 
Page 4 of 5 

certification hearing. Further, updating expert reports at this stage would only serve to
further delay proceedings and increase costs. Finally, Defendants’ attempt to shift the
blame to Plaintiffs for not discovering the omissions sooner is weak and unacceptable.
Accordingly, the Court finds that modest sanctions are warranted for Defendants’
nondisclosure. However, the Court does not find the nondisclosure to be willful or in bad
faith. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions20 is GRANTED, and the Court will
exclude any evidence or documents not produced in discovery unless such documents
were attached to pleadings filed into the record prior to the class certification hearing.
The Court declines to award any monetary sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on January 12, 2018.

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

20

Rec. Doc. No. 376.

43558 
Page 5 of 5