Adams v. Hepp et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 6/6/2019, granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 88 Motion to Compel. (cc: all counsel, plaintiff) (mlm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PAUL ALLEN ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-699

RANDALL R. HEPP, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

On May 17, 2019, the court ordered the defendants to provide it with copies of
all non-duplicative, non-privileged emails (with attachments) that defendants’
counsel had concluded were not responsive to plaintiff Paul Adams’s discovery
requests. The defendants did so on May 31, 2019. Having performed an in camera
review of the emails, the court concludes that nineteen documents are arguably
relevant to Adams’s claims and should be produced to him. The defendants must
produce the following documents, with necessary redactions, to Adams by June 14,
2019: Bates Nos. 2590, 2598, 2599, 2602, 2603, 2611, 2612, 2614, 2617, 2620, 2624,
2625, 2999, 7311, 11196, 12201, 12365, 12367, and 12811.
On May 29, 2019, Adams filed a motion to compel, which the court grants in
part and denies in part. Adams raises many issues but focuses primarily on his
inability to obtain the documents he believes he needs to defend against a motion for
summary judgment. Adams explains that he has encountered many obstacles in

trying to review his medical file. He states that he has received only a few
opportunities to review his file (which apparently includes progress reports, his
health service requests, and correspondence about his medical care), and on those
occasions was limited to thirty minutes and prohibited from taking notes. Adams
asserts that, although he was permitted to flag records for copying, he has not
received all of the requested copies.
Adams states that he needs documents from his medical file to defend against
a motion for summary judgment, so the court will require the defendants to assist
Adams in obtaining the documents sought. To that end, the parties are to proceed as
follows:
1) Adams may pay for a copy of his entire medical file, including treatment
records, health services requests, and correspondence by health services
staff about Adams (to the extent those documents have not already been
produced);
2) If Adams is unable to pay for a copy of his entire file, or if he does not want
a copy of his entire file, the defendants must allow Adams a meaningful
opportunity to review his medical file. Adams must be allowed a minimum
of three hours to review his file (in whatever increments his institution
determines, although the review is to be completed by June 18, 2019), and
he must be permitted to take notes. Adams may identify the documents in
his file that he would like copied at his expense.

2 

Defendants’ counsel must coordinate with Adams to determine which option
to pursue. The parties are free to agree to a different option if they find a solution
that works better for them. All copies must be provided to Adams by June 21, 2019.
Adams also explains that he does not believe that he has received all the emails
relevant to his claims. On April 30, 2019, the court held a telephonic hearing with the
parties to discuss discovery issues. (See Court Minutes at ECF No. 82.) At the hearing
defendants’ counsel explained that Adams had requested communications between
the defendants about him. Counsel explained that she ran a search using the
defendants’ names and Adams’s name and DOC inmate number. She explained that
there were about 1,700 pages of emails (with attachments), not all of which were
responsive.
Although Adams questions counsel’s assertion that her search of the
defendants’ emails resulted in only 1,700 pages, he does not explain how she should
have searched the defendants’ emails differently. The court agrees that searching the
defendants’ emails by using their names and Adams’s name and inmate number was
the best way to establish the universe of potentially relevant documents. As already
mentioned, the court performed an in camera review of the documents that
defendants’ counsel determined were not responsive, and it ordered that an
additional nineteen documents be produced to Adams. The court will not require
defendants’ counsel to conduct further searches of the defendants’ email
communications.

3 

Adams also asserts that, when he spoke to defendant Regina Henrichs’s boss,
she had a two-inch file that Adams was told Henrichs had maintained on him.
According to Adams, the defendants have ignored his requests to produce this file. At
the April 30th hearing, defendants’ counsel expressed her belief that any information
in that file would have been part of Adams’s medical file. She stated that she would
check on the file to determine if it contained documents that had not otherwise been
produced or that were not part of Adams’s medical file. The court will require
defendants’ counsel to inform Adams whether she located Henrichs’s file and, if she
did, what the file contains. If the file contains responsive, non-privileged documents
that have not already been produced or that are not part of Adams’s medical file, the
defendants must produce those documents to Adams by June 21, 2019.
Finally, Adams asserts that the defendants have ignored his discovery
requests regarding the water quality at Fox Lake Correctional Institution. The court
briefly discussed this issue at a January 4, 2019 telephonic status conference with
the parties. (See Court Minutes at ECF No. 66 at 3-4.) Defendants’ counsel explained
that she did not intend to respond to those requests because she did not believe they
were relevant to issues in this case. The court agreed and instructed Adams to focus
on his medical treatment and diet issues. Despite Adams’s characterizations to the
contrary, whether the water quality at Fox Lake was adequate is not an issue in this
case. The court will not require the defendants to respond to discovery requests on
that topic.

4 

The dispositive motion deadline is June 7, 2019. Defendants’ counsel has
indicated that the defendants intend to file a summary judgment motion. Assuming
the defendants file a summary judgment motion on June 7, Adams’s response
materials would be due on July 8, 2019. In light of the court’s order that the
defendants produce documents to Adams by June 21, 2019, the court will extend
Adams’s time to respond to a summary judgment motion from thirty days to sixty
days. If Adams needs more time to respond, he may file a motion for an extension of
time that discusses how much extra time he needs and why he believes he needs the
extra time.
SO ORDERED.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 6th day of June, 2019.

WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

5