Johnson v. Blake et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, omitting the Farmington Police report produced by Defendants for the Court's in camera review, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff no later than Wednesday, May 29, 2013, the Department of Men tal Health Investigative Unit Report, with the names of investigators, unit program supervisors, activity aides, clinical caseworkers, and security aides. The names of those persons civilly committed to the Department of Mental Health, referred t o as "consumers," shall remain redacted to protect their personal privacy, subject to a specific showing of necessity. The Court will destroy the documents submitted for in camera review on Wednesday, June 5, 2013, unless Defendants notify the Court before that date of their intent to retrieve the documents.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/20/13. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALAN BLAKE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-510-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the in camera review of documents submitted by
Defendants in response to this Court’s April 15, 2013 Order. (Doc. No. 46)
Plaintiff, a civil detainee at Fulton State Hospital, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in December 2009, he was sexually
assaulted by another civil detainee, LaJuan Tucker, at the Sex Offender Rehabilitation and
Treatment Services (“SORTS”) in Farmington, Missouri. Plaintiff further alleges that in
December of 2011, Defendants moved him to the same housing unit as Tucker despite Tucker’s
prior rape of Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that when he learned that he was being moved into the
same housing unit as Tucker, he told Defendants he was fearful that he would again be sexually
assaulted by Tucker. Plaintiff alleges that despite Defendants’ assurance of his safety, Tucker
raped him on numerous occasions in 2012. (Doc. No. 10-1)
In response to Plaintiff’s first request for production of documents, Defendants produced,
with redactions, individual pages of a Farmington Police Department report pertaining to
incidents occurring on or about February 20, 2012, labeled SORTS 006, 008, 010, and 012, and a

Department of Mental Health Investigative Unit report concerning an incident that occurred on
or about December 15, 16, and 19, 2009, which Plaintiff attached to a previous filing. (See Doc.
No. 21) Plaintiff requested the Court review these documents to determine if the redactions were
proper. Defendants have submitted the documents as required, and the Court has conducted its
review.
With respect to the Farmington Police Department Report, labeled SORTS 006, 008, 010,
and 012, the redacted information is limited to date of birth, social security number, addresses,
telephone numbers and driver’s license numbers of the Plaintiff and the suspect named in the
report, Lujuan Tucker. Clearly, this information has been redacted for the safety and security of
both Plaintiff and Tucker. Moreover, Plaintiff has indicated he has no issue with the redaction of
personal identifiers. (Doc. No. 40) Accordingly, the Court will not require Defendants to produce
the unredacted Farmington Police Report.
With respect to the Department of Mental Health Investigative Unit Report, the names of
investigators and staff members, including unit program supervisors, activity aides, clinical
caseworkers, and security aides, as well as the names of “consumers,” i.e., other persons civilly
committed to the Department of Mental Health, have all been redacted. Defendants take the
position that pursuant to Missouri statute, unsubstantiated investigative reports are confidential
and can be disclosed only with consent, see Mo.Ann.Stat. § 630.167.3(1), yet acknowledge a
lack of case law addressing the issue.1

1

In support of their position, Defendants cite Mo.Ann.Stat. § 610.021(5), which provides
that “[a] public governmental body is authorized to close . . . records . . . to the extent they relate
to nonjudicial mental or physical health proceedings involving identifiable persons, including
medical, psychiatric, psychological, or alcoholism or drug dependency diagnosis or treatment.”

After consideration, the Court will require Defendants to disclose to Plaintiff the names
of the investigators and staff members mentioned in the investigative report since these are
persons who may have knowledge of facts relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1) sets forth the scope of discovery for actions filed in federal court:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense - including 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.
The Court concludes, however, that redaction of the names of those persons civilly committed to
the Department of Mental Health for psychiatric care and treatment is required to allow for
confidentiality, subject to some specific showing of necessity on the part of Plaintiff.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, omitting the Farmington Police report produced by
Defendants for the Court’s in camera review, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff no later than
Wednesday, May 29, 2013, the Department of Mental Health Investigative Unit Report, with the
names of investigators, unit program supervisors, activity aides, clinical caseworkers, and security
aides. The names of those persons civilly committed to the Department of Mental Health, referred
to as “consumers,” shall remain redacted to protect their personal privacy, subject to a specific
showing of necessity.
The Court will destroy the documents submitted for in camera review on Wednesday,
June 5, 2013, unless Defendants notify the Court before that date of their intent to retrieve the
However, § 630.167.3(1) specifically states that investigative reports referred to in this section
are not subject to the provisions of Chapter 610.

documents.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2013.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE