Slaton et al v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC

Filing 31

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/9/2016.(asni, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

EPHRAIM SLATON AND GWENDOLYN
)
TOLLIVER, as Personal Representatives of the )
Estate of MATTHEW GREEN, JR., decedent, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
) Civil Action No: 3:15-CV-0627-JMC
v.
)
)
ORDER
)
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC
)
)
Defendant.
)
This matter is before the court on Ephraim Slaton and Gwendolyn Tolliver’s (“Plaintiffs”)
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 23). The allegations of negligence in this case arise out of an incident
involving the arrest and transport of Matthew Green, Jr. (“Plaintiff Decedent”). During Plaintiff
Decedent’s transport to the Alvin S. Glen Detention Center on August 16, 2011, he sustained an
injury that left him unresponsive in a holding cell. Plaintiffs allege that Dwayne Brown, a Certified
Medical Assistant and former employee of Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC (“Defendant”),
was the only medical staff member working the intake area during that time. Plaintiffs further allege
that Brown failed to assess and treat Plaintiff Decedent in a timely manner, which directly led to his
death. Plaintiffs have requested that Defendant produce Brown’s personnel and training files.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ request is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Generally, parties in civil litigation are permitted broad discovery. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins.

1

Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co., Inc., 967 F.2d 980, 983 (4th Cir. 1992). Parties
are able to obtain discovery regarding any matter that is nonprivileged and “relevant to any party’s
claim or defense.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For the information to be relevant, it does not have
to be admissible at trial, but it must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action.” Id. Where the burden of producing the proposed
discovery outweighs its benefit, a court is required to limit the extent of the discovery. Id. at
26(b)(2)(C). Here, Plaintiffs request Brown’s personnel and training files. Defendant asserts that
Plaintiffs’ request is overbroad because the production of the personnel file could lead to the
discovery of personal information that is not relevant to this case. Defendant further asserts that no
training file exists. (ECF No. 24). Plaintiffs contend that this information is relevant to confirming
the training Brown received while employed by Defendant, and for determining the reasons
surrounding his separation from employment soon after the incident involving Plaintiff Decedent.
(See ECF No. 23-1 at 2). Although Brown’s complete personnel file might contain some information
that is not relevant to this case, this court finds that Brown’s personnel file likely contains
information relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendant failed to hire, train, and supervise quality
medical professionals. (ECF 1-1 at 9).
Accordingly, this court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
(ECF No. 23). Plaintiffs’ motion is granted to the extent that Defendant is required to produce all
documents in Brown’s personnel file that pertain to: (1) his training and experience; (2) his
performance as an employee of Defendant, including evaluations and disciplinary actions; (3) the
incident involving Plaintiff Decedent, including any incident reports or written statements describing
actions taken by Brown; and (4) his separation from employment with Defendant. To the extent that
2

a training file is maintained on Dwayne Brown, Defendant is required to produce the file. Plaintiffs’
motion is denied with respect to any documentation in Brown’s personnel file that does not bear on
his training and experience, performance, separation from employment, or the incident involving
Plaintiff Decedent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

February 9, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

3