Sanchez v. Olig et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 8/14/2017. 54 Plaintiff's MOTION to restrict use of private healthcare information DENIED. 56 Plaintiff's MOTION to compel discovery DENIED. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Salvador Sanchez at Wisconsin Resource Center)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
SALVADOR SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-935-pp

TODD OLIG, PAUL LUDVIGSON,
AND JEREMY WESTRA
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RESTRICT THE USE OF
PRIVATE HEALTHCARE INFORMATION (DKT. NO. 54) AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DKT NO. 56)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Salvador Sanchez, who is a Wisconsin state prisoner
representing himself, filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the defendants
violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at the Waupun
Correctional Institution. Dkt. No. 1. On January 15, 2016, the court screened
the amended complaint, dkt. no. 18, and allowed the plaintiff to proceed on: (1)
an excessive force claim against defendant Todd Olig based on allegations that
he purposely kicked the plaintiff’s cell door which caused serious injury to the
plaintiff’s finger; and (2) retaliation claims against defendant Paul Ludvigson
(who issued the plaintiff a conduct report claiming that he lied about staff after
he filed a grievance against Olig), defendant Olig (who testified at the
disciplinary hearing that he did not kick the plaintiff’s door), and defendant
Jeremy Westra (who conducted the hearing and issued the sanction of

1

additional segregation). Dkt. No. 17 at 10-12. The plaintiff has filed two
motions, which the court will address in this order.1
I.

Motion to Restrict the Use of Private Healthcare Information
The plaintiff has filed a motion to restrict the use of private healthcare

information. Dkt. No. 54. He states that on May 12, 2017, he signed an
authorization for the disclosure of his private healthcare information. Id. at 1.
When the plaintiff read and signed the document, he thought that it authorized
the defendants to access his healthcare records from June 1, 2015 to the
present. Id. Since signing the document, the plaintiff revoked the medical
authorization allowing the defendants to access his records from June 1, 2010
to the present. Id. at 2. The plaintiff asserts that because the incident at issue
in this case occurred on June 9, 2015, any records prior to June 1, 2015 are
irrelevant and he requests that the court order the defendants not to use any of
those medical records. Id.
The defendants filed a response to the motion, in which they disagree
with the plaintiff’s contention that his records prior to June 1, 2015 are
irrelevant. Dkt. No. 59. According to the defendants, the records are relevant
because the plaintiff alleges that the June 9, 2015 incident injured his right
ring finger and that, prior to June 2015, he had three separate surgeries on
that same finger. Id. Also, the June 9, 2015 incident allegedly exacerbated the
plaintiff’s pre-existing anxiety disorder. Id. The defendants contend that the
The court had stayed this case from May 15, 2016, through April 18, 2017,
because defendant Olig had been mobilized to active military duty in Iraq. Dkt.
No. 37.
1

2

court should allow them to explore the plaintiff’s past medical history with
respect to his finger pain and anxiety disorder prior to June 2015. Id. “How
long the conditions have existed, how they have progressed over time, how they
were treated in the past, and what [the plaintiff] reported to his medical
professionals in the years preceding the date at issue in this lawsuit are
relevant to [the plaintiff’s] alleged damages.” Id. The defendants assert that five
years preceding this lawsuit represents a reasonable length of time to provide
them with enough information to evaluate the plaintiff’s medical history as to
both liability and damages issues, as well as striking an appropriate balance
between the defendants’ right to explore potential defenses to the suit with the
plaintiff’s interests in his medical privacy. Id.
The plaintiff filed a reply in which he acknowledges that he had three
surgeries prior to the incident—two of them taking place over a decade before
the incident, and the third in 2014, while he was incarcerated at the Racine
Correctional Institution. Dkt. No. 61 at 1. The plaintiff concedes that it is fair
for the defendants to receive his healthcare information from January 1, 2014,
through the present, because that timeframe encompasses all that the defense
could gain, based on what they claim to need, from the plaintiff’s medical
records; that it will verify that he had a diagnosis of generalized panic/anxiety
disorder; and that his symptoms grew after the incident. Id. According to the
plaintiff, there is no need for him to reveal personal health information from the
past five years because the information the defendants seek is not in those
records. Id.
3

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The plaintiff concedes the relevance of his
medical records, but he asks that the court limit how far back the defendants
may examine those records. Given that the plaintiff has had three prior
surgeries on his finger and that the length of time that he has suffered from his
anxiety is not clear, the court finds the defendants’ request to examine the
plaintiff’s medical records from June 1, 2010 to the present a reasonable one.
The court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to restrict access to the records.
II.

Motion to Compel
The plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery. Dkt. No. 57. He

asserts that the defendants gave him an altered or damaged video in response
to his request for production of documents. Id. at 1. According to the plaintiff,
the video clip of the incident “seemed to momentarily freeze at the point when
defendant Olig was about two feet from the plaintiff’s door, which is the
moment the plaintiff alleged Olig kicked his door [and] the video resumes only a
second – literally a second or two – later, when Olig is standing at the plaintiff’s
door.” Id. The plaintiff asks that the court order the defendants to produce a
copy of the video “as it was recorded,” meaning one that does not pause at the
exact moment when Olig allegedly kicked the plaintiff’s cell door. Id. at 2.
The defendants responded that the court should deny the plaintiff’s
motion to compel because a better quality video does not exist. Dkt. No. 62.
According to the defendants, while there are a number of times when there is a
4

bit of delay in movement on the video due to the poor quality of the recording
equipment, the video was not intentionally altered in any way. Id.
The plaintiff contends that the defendants’ explanation is unacceptable.
Dkt. No. 64. He asks the court to enter default judgment for him if the
defendants cannot produce a better-quality, smoother-running recording. Id.
Alternatively, the plaintiff asks that the court bar the video due to its
prejudicial nature. Id.
The court has not seen the video. If, at some point in the future, a party
asks the court to admit the video as evidence in a hearing or at a trial, the
court will decide at that time whether to allow or exclude the video. The court
cannot, however, compel the defendants to provide something that they do not
have. The court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel.
III.

Conclusion
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to restrict the use of private

healthcare information. Dkt. No. 54.
The court DENIES that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Dkt. No.
56.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 14th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

5