Aus et al v. Salt Lake County et al
Filing
79
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Overruling 66 Plaintiffs' Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 11/6/2018. (jds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JASON AUS, JANIS AUS, and the ESTATE
of JEREMY AUS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SALT LAKE COUNTY, JAMES WINDER,
WELLCON, INC., and John and Jane Does 110,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’
OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S ORDER
Case No. 2:16-cv-00266-JNP-BCW
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
Before the court is an Objection filed by Plaintiffs Jason Aus, Janis Aus, and the Estate of
Jeremy Aus (“Plaintiffs”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
(Docket No. 66). On April 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Wells denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel
discovery. (ECF No. 65). Because plaintiffs have filed a timely objection to that order, the court
must review it and “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). For the reasons below, plaintiffs’ objection is overruled.
BACKGROUND
This is a § 1983 action seeking redress for alleged violations of Jeremy Aus’s
constitutional rights while he was an inmate at Salt Lake County jail. During discovery in this
matter, plaintiffs sought to compel an answer to interrogatory No. 6, which asked the defendants
to:
Identify the number of inmates admitted to Salt Lake County Jail in 2013 with
current benzodiazepine prescriptions and from that number, identify by number,
inmates who were allowed to continue their prescription, inmates allowed to
continue their benzodiazepine use on a taper, and inmates who were completely
denied access to benzodiazepines.
Magistrate Judge Wells denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel, in part because this interrogatory
was of questionable relevance in light of a medical examiner’s conclusion that Mr. Aus’ cause of
death was acute onset encephalitis.
Plaintiffs object that “regardless of the Aus’ withdrawal’s [sic] role in his death, the
information remains directly relevant to whether SLC has an unconstitutional practice.” While
technically true, this statement does not reflect the law with respect to the requisite nexus
between a § 1983 plaintiff’s injury and the constitutional violation that caused it. The Supreme
Court has held that § 1983 “should be read against the background of tort liability that makes a
man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions.” Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187
(1961). Accordingly, defendants in a § 1983 action “are liable for the harm proximately caused
by their conduct.” Martinez v. Carson, 697 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiffs are correct that, in order to impose § 1983 liability on a municipality (so-called
Monell liability), a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a policy or custom. But even if
plaintiffs found a policy or custom of denying benzodiazepines to inmates, they could not
ultimately recover from the municipality unless this policy or custom was the “moving force” (or
proximate cause) of Jeremy Aus’ constitutional injury. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of
New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ argument that the role of Mr. Aus’
benzodiazepine withdrawal in his death is irrelevant to whether defendants should be compelled
to respond to the interrogatory must be rejected. Relevance during discovery is broad, but it
cannot be used to permit unduly burdensome discovery requests that are calculated to establish a
fact that does not bear on plaintiffs’ claims.
2
Magistrate Judge Wells found that responding to interrogatory No. 6 would be unduly
burdensome, and that even if the timeframe was narrowed to a three-month period, it would
require a manual review of 9,000 charts. She further found that this request was not proportional
to the needs of the case, especially in light of her order compelling the discovery of pharmacy
records, which, defendants represented, contain much of the information sought by this
interrogatory. The court does not find any portion of this order that is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. As a result, plaintiffs’ objection to Magistrate Judge Wells’ Memorandum
Decision and Order Denying Motion to Compel Discovery is OVERRULED.
Signed November 6, 2018
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge
3
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?