Doe v. County of Milwaukee et al

Filing 125

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper for Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 8/2/2016 GRANTING 116 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. By 8/19/2016 Milwaukee County and Armor Correctional Health Services to respond in full to Requests #1 and #2 of plaintiff's third set of interrogatories and requests for production. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 14-C-200

COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE;
DAVID A. CLARKE, JR.,
individually and in his official capacity;
XAVIER D. THICKLEN;
and JOHN and JANE DOE, unknown
Milwaukee County Jail employees and Officers,
Defendants,
and
WISCONSIN COUNTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Intervenor.

DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jane Doe filed an expedited non-dispositive motion to compel
Defendant Milwaukee County and its medical services and records contractor,
Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., to provide certain documents in
response to Requests #1 and #2 of her third request for production of
documents within seven days of an order by the Court. (ECF No. 116.) The

County contends that the motion to compel is unnecessary because it not only
fulfilled, but exceeded those requests. (Cnty. Resp. 2, 4, ECF No. 118.) In
apparent conflict, the County also states that due to the scope and breadth of
Doe’s discovery requests, it has been unable to produce all of the documents
potentially responsive to Doe’s discovery request and that it continues in its
efforts to produce responsive documents and to facilitate production of
documents from Armor to Doe.
Since 2013, Armor has provided health care for County detainees and
inmates; provided medical records management and administrative support
services; and maintained the medical records for each inmate receiving health
care services at the Milwaukee County Jail. Due to the confidentiality of those
records, the County could not produce Armor’s records without a protective
order. The Court entered a stipulated protective order on April 21, 2016. (ECF
No. 109.)
Between April 29 and May 31, 2016, Doe sent five emails to the
County, requesting the discovery materials. (Group Ex. D, ECF No. 116-4.) On
May 9, the County stated that its responses should be ready the following day;
however, it did not have the Armor documents. On May 10, the County stated
the requested documents were ready, but it wanted to have the amended
protective order in place before producing them. The Court entered an
amended protective order on May 19. (ECF No. 115.) On May 25, the County

-2-

produced documents labeled MilwCnty 003721-3801 identifying Jail detainees
who were hospitalized for labor and delivery from October 4, 2009, through
April 30, 2016. (Posnanski Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 119.)
Doe’s May 31 email requested the County’s position on the Armor
documents, and indicated that if she did not receive the documents she would
move to compel. On June 1, Doe conferred unsuccessfully with the County in a
good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute. (Kleinhaus Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) On
June 20, the County provided her with the last known contact information for
Jail detainees who gave birth while hospitalized. (Id. at ¶ 3.) On June 21, Doe
filed the motion to compel.
Request #1 asks for “[a]ll records indicating the names and last known
contact information of women who gave birth while in the custody of
Milwaukee County Jail from October 4, 2009-October 4, 2013, including but
not limited to, women who were restrained by shackles or other devices.”
(Mot. Compel, Ex. A, 1.) The County produced records of hospitalizations for
women who gave birth from October 2009 through the end of April 2016 — a
time period in excess of Doe’s October 2013 end date. The information the
County produced, however, is more limited than Doe requests; her request
includes all women who gave birth while in custody, not just those who were
hospitalized. The County has not fully responded to Request #1. Therefore,
the Court will grant the motion to compel as to that request, including last

-3-

known addresses of the women. The County must supplement its response no
later than August 19, 2016.
Request #2 seeks “[a]ll records indicating any risk assessments that
were conducted in order to determine whether to shackle any women who
gave birth while in the custody of Milwaukee County Jail from October 4,
2009-0ctober 4, 2013.” In September 2015, the County objected to the request
as “vague and ambiguous” with respect to “risk assessments.” (Mot. Compel,
Ex. B, 2, ECF No. 116-2.) The County also stated:
Subject to and without waiving this objection, risk assessments
are performed for each and every medical procedure for which an
inmate is transported to the hospital, regardless of the type of
medical procedure. Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office procedures
dictate that all inmates sent for hospital transport are to be
evaluated and assessed based upon security risk factors.
Restraints are applied to all inmates during all hospital watch
medical procedures and are only release[d] based upon medical
necessity as determined by medical professionals in consultation
with Milwaukee County Sheriff[‘]s Office staff. An inmate’s bail,
criminal charges, disciplinary history, and biographical
information are all factored in to hospital security and transport
assessments. In law enforcement and corrections, hospital
transports and hospital security are considered extremely highrisk and dangerous situations. In further response to this
Request, please see documents previously produced marked as
MilwCnty002986-002994.
(Id.)
Doe states that the County and Armor have not produced relevant
documents. The County states that it has done so.
The County responded to the request in September 2015. It also

-4-

supplemented its response to the third set of requests for production on April
6, 2016. (Posnanski Decl. ¶ 4.) The County provides no further details
regarding its supplemented response.
The Court did not sign the protective order until late April 2016, after
the County had responded and supplemented that response. There is no
indication that the documents produced by the County prior to the date of the
protective order include any risk assessment records maintained by Armor.
Because it does not have an affirmative statement by the County or any
evidence that the risk assessment documents it produced include Armor’s
records, the Court will grant the motion as to Request #2 and will require
that any additional documents be produced by August 19, 2016.
Based on the foregoing, Doe’s motion to compel (ECF No. 116) is
GRANTED. No later than August 19, 2016, the County and Armor must
respond in full to Requests #1 and #2 of Doe’s third set of interrogatories and
requests for production.
SO ORDERED this 2nd of August, 2016.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Pamela Pepper
for HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-5-