Ford v. Caddo Parish et al

Filing 35

ORDER re: plaintiff's records from Angola State Pentitentiary. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 4/13/15. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
GLENN FORD

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0544

VERSUS

*

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS

CADDO PARISH DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, ET AL.

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

ORDER
On March 31, 2015, the court granted the City of Shreveport’s motion for leave to
conduct expedited discovery for inmate records, and ordered the State of Louisiana, Department
of Corrections, to produce to counsel for the City of Shreveport the following records,
a)

any inmate file maintained regarding Mr. Ford;

b)

any “kite” communications concerning Mr. Ford;

c)

any administrative relief request documents regarding Mr. Ford;

d)

any medical/mental health records file maintained regarding Mr. Ford; and

e)
any disciplinary records regarding Mr. Ford.
See doc. #s 15 & 27.
This morning, the court received correspondence from Mr. Joseph Woodley, counsel for
the City of Shreveport, stating that he had received a four inch-high stack of responsive
documents from the State, including a subset of documents marked “confidential.” Counsel
attached the “confidential” documents to his letter for the court’s in camera review.
State law provides that
[w]henever records covered by this Section are subpoenaed, the records
shall be submitted to the appropriate court for a ruling as to whether the
information should be turned over to the party who caused the subpoena to

be issued. The court shall make this determination in camera. Should the
court find:
(a)

That the information is not relevant to the proceedings, or

(b)

That the information was derived from
communications which were obviously made in the
confidence that they would not be disclosed, or

(c)

That confidentiality is essential to future useful relations between
the source and the recorder of the information,

the information shall be withheld.
La. R. S. § 15:574.12(F)(1).
Furthermore, under Rule 26(b),
[u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense--including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in
the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence . . .
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
The courts understand the rule to provide for broad and liberal discovery. See Schlagenhauf v.
Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114-5 (1964); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385 (1947).
Nonetheless, the scope of discovery is limited by relevance, albeit “relevance” is to be broadly
construed. Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982). Ultimately, the relevance inquiry
ends where it starts; i.e., the relevancy of a discovery request depends upon whether it is
“reasonably calculated” to lead to admissible evidence. Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,
392 F.3d 812, 820 (5th Cir. 2004).
Applying the foregoing considerations here, the court notes that there are 71 pages of

2

documents marked “confidential,” roughly divided into five categories:
1)

Victim Family Notification (regarding plaintiff’s release from prison) (8 pages)

2)

Prison Unusual Occurrence Reports (11 pages);

3)

Plaintiff’s Criminal History (15 pages);

4)

Capital Sentencing Report (May 6, 1985) (20 pages);

5)

Prison Risk Needs Assessments and Mental Health Service Codes (17 pages).

Upon review, the court finds that the documents in Category No. 1 contain victim
addresses, and are not relevant to the instant proceeding. Furthermore, although the remaining
categories of documents include some sensitive background and health information of plaintiff,
the potential relevancy of the material outweighs these concerns given the nature of plaintiff’s
claims. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court file the Category No. 1 documents in the record
under seal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward the Category 2-5
documents to Mr. Joseph Woodley, counsel for the City of Shreveport. Counsel may use these
documents for the limited purposes of this case, but otherwise, shall maintain their
confidentiality.
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 13th day of April 2015.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3