Siefert et al v. Hamilton County/ Hamilton County Board of Commissioners/ Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM ORDER following Informal Discovery Conference held 8/23/2022. Thismatter is set for an additional informal conference on 10/5/2022 at 10:00 AM in order to discuss the potential need for additional depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 8/25/2022. (km)

Case: 1:17-cv-00511-MWM-SKB Doc #: 65 Filed: 08/25/22 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 621

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH SIEFERT, et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-511

Plaintiffs,
McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

vs.
HAMITLON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This civil action came before the Court on August 23, 2022 for a discovery
conference, by phone, to address the parties’ discovery disputes. Based upon the parties’
informal oral motions, arguments and assertions during the conference, the undersigned
issues the following ORDER:
1. Number of Witnesses and Depositions
The parties have designated approximately 36 potential lay witnesses. Plaintiffs
contend that they would like to take depositions of all of Defendants witnesses. As such,
Plaintiffs anticipate that they will need to take more than the 10 allotted depositions.
Plaintiffs are therefore asking the Court for permission to take additional depositions.
Plaintiffs request is premature at this time. The parties shall proceed with depositions as
scheduled. If the need arises, the Court may expand the number of depositions. This
matter is herein set for an additional informal conference on October 5, 2022 at 10:00am
in order to discuss the potential need for additional depositions.
2. Discovery related to Plaintiff’s minor children
Plaintiffs have three younger children, who were ages 6 months, 3 years, and 12
at the time of the events outlined in the Complaint. Plaintiffs object to discovery related to

Case: 1:17-cv-00511-MWM-SKB Doc #: 65 Filed: 08/25/22 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 622

the 3 younger children on the grounds of relevance as Plaintiffs are not seeking damages
based on harm to the three younger children. Upon careful review, the undersigned finds
that the minor children may not be deposed or called as witnesses without Court approval.
However, questions relating to the minor children shall be permitted during deposition
testimony, subject to Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Request to inspect premises
The County Defendants have asked questions in discovery about the Plaintiffs
attempts to physically remove the Minor Plaintiff from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital
Medical Center (“CCHMC”). However, according to Plaintiffs, because of the security
systems at the hospital, there was no way that the Plaintiffs could physically remove the
child without hospital approval. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an inspection and video of
CCHMC’s College Hill facility, which provides psychiatric and behavioral health services.
After originally stating that they would make arrangements for the inspection,
Defendant CCHMC later advised Plaintiffs' counsel that it is not feasible to accommodate
a tour of the College Hill facility at this time. CCHMC is engage in a $99M expansion of
the College Hill facility that will virtually replace the whole facility. In addition, CCHMC
asserts that an inspection is not feasible due to COVID and flu concerns, patient and staff
safety concerns, patient and staff privacy concerns, and restrictions on visitation. CCHMC
further contends that consistent with its prior objections, such an inspection is not relevant
or proportional to the one remaining due process claim in this case. CCHMC’s contentions
are not well-taken.1 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that CCHMC shall allow Plaintiffs
to inspect and video the premises, to include both the lobby and the area in which the

 The Court inquired as to the possibility of a stipulation regarding the security measures and feasibility of
the parents to remove their child without approval. An agreement on a stipulation was not reached. 
1

2 

Case: 1:17-cv-00511-MWM-SKB Doc #: 65 Filed: 08/25/22 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 623

Minor Plaintiff was held, or provide a drawing, preferably an architectural drawing, of the
premises to include the lobby and the area in which the Minor Plaintiff was held showing
the locations of the locked doors, security guards and other and security measures in
place at the time of the events in question.
4. Records from Patricia Kerregan
Plaintiffs are seeking all records from Patricia Kerregan, a social worker at
CCHMC who treated the Minor Plaintiff. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have only
produced medical records but cite to records that reflect that emails relating to this matter
do exist and have not yet been produced. Notably, on August 2, 2022, CCHMC contacted
Ms. Kerregan to determine whether she has any such records that would exist outside of
the official medical records and agreed to supplement its document production with any
such documents. To date, CCHMC represents that it has not received any additional
documents. To the extent that such documents exist, CCHMC must produce them to
Plaintiff. The Court notes that emails are often located in places other than in an “inbox,”
such as a “sent” folder or “trash” folder. To perform a complete search Ms. Kerregan is
required to thoroughly search her emails. If CCHMC has already produced all documents
that exist from Ms. Kerregan, it shall so certify for the record.
5. Records Relating to Humana Appeals
Plaintiffs requested documents from CCHMC related to an appeal to Humana,
Plaintiffs’ health insurer at the time of the events in question. CCHMC contends that it
has produced all Humana documents in its possession.2

The undersigned finds that

CCHMC shall do another search for any Humana documents and to focus on the type of

2

 Plaintiffs also subpoenaed the documents from Humana.  According to Plaintiffs, Humana did not respond to the 
subpoena.   

3 

Case: 1:17-cv-00511-MWM-SKB Doc #: 65 Filed: 08/25/22 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 624

documents that Plaintiffs’ counsel has indicated exists but has not yet been produced. If
additional documents are not found by CCHMC, Plaintiffs may file a motion to compel
Humana to respond to Plaintiffs’ subpoena.
6. Post July 2021 Medical Records
Plaintiffs are seeking the Minor Plaintiff’s medical records through January 29,
2018, the date of the juvenile custody hearing.

Notably, the Minor Plaintiff was

hospitalized at CCHMC from November 23, 2016 through December 20, 2016. CCHMC
has produced medical records through July of 2017, more than 7 months after Minor
Plaintiff's discharge from CCHMC. Defendants contend that medical records after July
2017 are not relevant or proportional to Plaintiffs’ remaining claim. The Court noted that
from the period of time through the juvenile custody hearing that the parents may have a
legal right to be able to obtain the records since their parental rights were not yet
terminated. The Court directed the parties to further look into this issue. If the parents
are otherwise legally entitled to these records the Defendants should produce them. The
Court advised the parties to work together to resolve this disputed issue. Should the
parties not be able to come to an agreement or compromise as to the production of these
medical records, the Plaintiffs are permitted to file a motion to compel.
7. Medical Authorizations and additional medical documents
On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Jerry Kunkel and David Brittingham
requesting information about medical authorizations and corresponding materials
obtained by Defendants from Minor Plaintiff and her providers. Plaintiffs’ informal request,
however, did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall serve Defendants with a formal discovery request, relating to

4 

Case: 1:17-cv-00511-MWM-SKB Doc #: 65 Filed: 08/25/22 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 625

the medical authorizations and medical records, as outlined by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The requests shall clearly indicate which Defendants each request is

directed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

5