DeBauche, David v. WI Dept. of Corrections, DOC et al

Filing 103

ORDER that plaintiff David D. DeBauche's motion to compel (dkt. 93 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/10/2022. (kmd),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DAVID DEBAUCHE,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION AND ORDER
17-cv-524-wmc

MEREDITH MASHAK,
SALAMULLAH SYED,
KERHN and HUNTER,
Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff David DeBauche, a prisoner at Columbia Correctional Institution
(“Columbia”), is suing four current or former Columbia employees on Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference and state law negligence claims, for their alleged failure to provide
him with adequate medical attention for his severe back pain in 2016 and 2017. DeBauche
has filed a motion to compel (dkt. 93), which I am denying for the reasons that follow.
DeBauche asks that I compel defendants to produce the following documents: all of
his Health Service Unit (HSU), Psychological Service Unit (PSU), dental and optical files;
all documents related to three inmate complaints he filed in 2020; copies of audio and
video footage from January and February of 2020; training records from April 2020
through January 2021; Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) policies regarding
indigent envelopes, pens and paper; the DOC menus from October 2021; and DOC
policies defining “publication” and relating to heat advisories. DeBauche states that he
needs: his medical records because they have been destroyed by a Columbia officer; copies
of inmate complaints he filed in 2020 and recordings from 2020 to show that Columbia
staff are interfering with his ability to litigate this case; training records from 2020-2021

to show inadequate training and intentional harassment by officers; menus from October
2021 because those were confiscated by an officer; and certain DOC policies related to
publications, heat advisories and thermal underwear and blankets to show that staff no
longer are protecting him from excessive heat or cold.
In opposition, defendants correctly point out that DeBauche has failed to show that
he attempted to resolve these disputes with defense counsel prior to filing this motion, and
that in any event, their responses and objections to these requests were appropriate.
Defendants are correct.

Only DeBauche’s first request for production seeks arguably

relevant documents, and defendants responded appropriately. Specifically, they responded
that they could not yet produce those materials because DeBauche had not signed an
authorization permitting defendants to access his protected health information.
Defendants added, however, that DeBauche can review his own files by submitting requests
to the HSU or the PSU; further, defendants indicate a willingness to turn over DeBauche’s
medical records to him once defendants receive them.
Defendants objected to Requests 2-9 on relevance grounds because Requests 2-4
and 6 sought materials from 2020 and 2021; and Requests 5 and 7-9 requested copies of
policies. Despite objecting to Requests 5 and 7-9, defendants provided DeBauche a copy
of the DAI Policy Index, informing him that the unrestricted policies were available for his
review. DeBauche has not filed a reply brief.
I see no reason to require defendants to supplement their responses.

Their

objections are well-taken because DeBauche is not proceeding on claims related to his
conditions of confinement from 2020 to present. This case is about events that occurred

2

in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, there is no basis to infer that Columbia officials are
actually preventing DeBauche from litigating this case. Although DeBauche has received
two extensions of time to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
exhaustion grounds, his submissions have been type-written, suggesting that he has
adequate access to resources and materials to submit necessary filings in this case. If
DeBauche believes that Columbia officials have been violating his rights in their handling
of his property, then he will need to pursue a separate lawsuit bringing those claims.
Finding defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s requests for production adequate, I am denying
DeBauche’s motion.
A final note: if there are any more discovery disputes in this case, then DeBauche
must attempt to resolve them directly with defense counsel before he may file a motion to
compel. This is the court’s new policy, and it applies to all pending lawsuits. To show that
he has met this requirement, DeBauche can submit copies of the actual communications
between defense counsel and himself, or he can explain in a written declaration sworn
under penalty of perjury the steps that he took to try to work out the dispute with
defendants. If DeBauche fails to include the information about his efforts to resolve his
dispute in any future motion to compel, then I will deny that motion without prejudice to
his ability to renew it with the required information.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff David D. DeBauche’s motion to compel (dkt. 93) is
DENIED.
Entered this 10th day of January, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

4