Lewis v. Gautreaux et al

Filing 208

ORDER: Plaintiff's 197 Fourth MOTION to Compel is GRANTED. The City-Parish shall produce the disciplinary and training records of Casani Moton, Thu Thu Fontenot, Kim Bates, and Michelle Antoine within 7 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 6/17/2019. (KAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ADRIENNE LEWIS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-352-JWD-RLB

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion to Compel the City of Baton Rouge/Parish
of East Baton Rouge (“City-Parish”). (R. Doc. 197). The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 198).
I.

Background
Adrienne Lewis, by and on behalf of the minor child L.A.J. (“Plaintiff”), filed this civil

rights action regarding the arrest, incarceration, and death of Lamar Johnson while held at the
East Baton Rouge Parish Prison (“EBRPP”). (R. Doc. 1; R. Doc. 27).
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on May 26, 2015, Mr. Johnson was
arrested after a routine traffic stop for tinted windows, held at the EBRPP on an arrest warrant
for a non-violent charge, and sentenced to five days in prison. (R. Doc. 27 at 6-7). Plaintiff
alleges that while confined, Mr. Johnson acquired and consumed synthetic marijuana called
“mojo” and suffered paranoid delusions and extreme emotional distress. (R. Doc. 27 at 7).
Plaintiff alleges that certain Sheriff Defendants later physically attacked and pepper sprayed Mr.
Johnson and moved him to a wing consisting of a row of solitary isolation cells, and that Mr.
Johnson was again attacked while in solitary confinement. (R. Doc. 27 at 9-10). On May 30,
2015, Mr. Johnson was found hanging from his cell bars, and died a few days later at a local
hospital. (R. Doc. 27 at 11).

Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Johnson “died as a result of both unconstitutional conditions of
confinement and particular individual defendants’ deliberate indifference to Mr. Johnson’s
constitutional rights.” (Doc. 27 at 1). Plaintiff further alleges that the unlawful policies and
practices at the EBRPP include “racial segregation of prisoner living areas, defects in physical
design and manner of operation, including inadequate staffing, inadequate supervision
techniques, poor sightlines, and inadequate monitoring of prisoner living areas that combined to
result in frequent violence and a continuous pattern of constitutional deprivations for the
prisoners in EBRPP, including Mr. Johnson.” (R. Doc. 27 at 16).
On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff served her Sixth Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to the City-Parish. (R. Doc. 197-3). The City-Parish timely responded. (R. Doc. 1974).
The requests for production sought the employment personnel files for fourteen
individuals, as well as files created by the City-Parish containing documents related to Dr. Rani
Whifield’s work as a medical professional at EBRPP. (R. Doc. 197-3 at 12-13). The City-Parish
objected to the requests on the bases of overbreadth, irrelevant, vagueness, ambiguity, and
confidentiality, but produced the Professional Services Agreement between the City-Parish and
Dr. Whitfield. (R. Doc. 197-4 at 4-10).
The parties conferred regarding the written discovery on March 28, 2019. (R. Doc. 197-1
at 3). Plaintiff limited her request to the disciplinary and training records in the files, and the
City-Parish produced those records with respect to five individuals. (R. Doc. 197-1 at 3-4). The
City-Parish refuses, however, to produce “the disciplinary and training records of Casani Moton,
Thu Thu Fontenot, Kim Bates, and Michelle Antoine because this group of nurses only came
into contact/had access to Mr. Johnson after his attempted suicide rather than prior to his

2

attempted suicide” and these post-attempted suicide contacts are not within the scope of
discovery. (R. Doc. 197-5 at 5).
Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling production of “the training and discipline records
from the personnel files of the nurses who arrived on the scene on May 30, 2015 at 10:25 a.m.
when Mr. Johnson was found hanging from a blanket at the jail.” (R. Doc. 197-1 at 8). Plaintiff
argues that the training of these nurses, particularly how they respond to emergencies and suicide
attempts, is within the scope of discovery even though they are not named defendants. (R. Doc.
197-1 at 7). Plaintiff seeks this information in support of a theory that “lack of proper treatment”
from the responding nurses contributed to Mr. Johnson’s death. (R. Doc. 197-1 at 7).
In opposition, the City-Parish argues that the discovery sought is not relevant or
proportional to the needs of the case because Plaintiff has not alleged any medical malpractice or
negligence claims against the City-Parish, and Plaintiff’s “deliberate indifference” claims are
limited to other defendants. (R. Doc. 198).
II.

Law and Analysis
A.

Legal Standards

“Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 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). The court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that: “(i) the

3

discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii)
the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C).
“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement indicates that the party seeking a protective order has the
burden “to show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and specific
demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra
Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323,
1326 n.3 (5th Cir. 1978)).
B.

Analysis

Having considered the arguments of the parties, and the record, the Court concludes that
the disciplinary and training records of Casani Moton, Thu Thu Fontenot, Kim Bates, and
Michelle Antoine fall within the scope of discovery and must be produced.
In Count 2 of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the City-Parish violated Mr.
Johnson’s rights under the Eight and Fourteenth Amendment “by maintaining policies, patterns
or practices that created unconstitutional conditions of confinement that deprived prisoners,
including Mr. Johnson, of basic human needs, including physical safety and mental health.” (R.
Doc. 27 at 17). Plaintiff specifically alleges that the City-Parish “failed to provide appropriate
medical and mental health services to EBRPP prisoners, including Mr. Johnson, who was
individually harmed by the de facto policies and practices described above and resulted in Mr.

4

Johnson’s death.” (R. Doc. 27 at 18). These allegations, as well as the allegations in Count 1 and
Count 3, support a finding that the disciplinary and training records of nurses who arrived on the
scene prior to Mr. Johnson’s death are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Furthermore, given that the
documents are readily available, the cost of production is low, and the nature of this action, the
Court finds the discovery to be proportional to the needs of the case. Any concerns with respect
to confidentiality can be addressed by production of the documents in accordance with the
protective order in this action. The Court provides no ruling on whether the discovery will
ultimately be admissible.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion (R. Doc. 197) is GRANTED. The

City-Parish shall produce the disciplinary and training records of Casani Moton, Thu Thu
Fontenot, Kim Bates, and Michelle Antoine within 7 days of the date of this Order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 17, 2019.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5