Van Orden et al v. Healthlink, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to compel is DENIED. (ECF No. 759 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 04/06/2017. (KCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JOHN VAN ORDEN, et al.,
JEFF STRINGER, et al.,
Case No. 4:09CV00971 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This class action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 759) to
compel responses to two of Plaintiffs’ supplemental interrogatories issued to
Defendants during this remedial phase of the case.1 These supplemental
interrogatories relate to (1) the supervision and monitoring of persons who have been
granted conditional release under Missouri’s Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”)
statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.505, and have been or are being reintegrated into the
community, and (2) the treatment of residents in Missouri’s Sex Offender
Rehabilitation and Treatment Services (“SORTS”) facilities who are intellectually or
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that the information sought is outside
the scope of the Court’s liability findings and therefore irrelevant to this remedial
phase of the case. Plaintiffs respond that the topics noted in the supplemental
The Court already held a trial on liability and concluded that Plaintiffs established
classwide liability in certain limited and discrete respects.
interrogatories relate to the overarching issue of successful treatment and release of
SORTS residents, which is at the core of this litigation and which Defendants claim to
have taken initiatives to address.2
As Plaintiffs acknowledge, at the time of the liability trial in this case, there was
no evidence regarding the treatment of persons who had been granted conditional
release and were being reintegrated into the community because no such persons
existed at that time. Therefore, the Court did not find (and could not have found)
classwide liability with regard to the treatment of such persons. Likewise, the Court
did not find liability with respect to treatment of intellectually or developmentally
disabled SORTS residents in particular; nor did Plaintiffs request (or the Court order)
that a subclass be created to address these residents’ unique claims. In short, the issues
addressed in these disputed supplemental interrogatories simply were not the focus of
Upon careful review of the parties’ arguments and the Court’s liability findings,
and in light of the proportionality concerns set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b), which require the Court to balance the significance of the discovery to the issues
in the case against the burden of production, the Court will not order Defendants to
produce the information sought here.
According to Plaintiffs, Defendants have disclosed an expert witness for the
remedies phase whose opinions relate largely to various initiatives and changes that
Defendants have implemented, or plan to implement, in order to address the program
deficiencies noted in the Court’s liability opinion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED.
(ECF No. 759.)
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of April, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?