The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, United States District Judge.
Tuesday, 19 June, 2012 02:16:40 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's Sixth Motion to Compel (d/e 68). On June 18, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the Motion, at which time Plaintiff raised a number of additional issues. Plaintiff was present via video conference and Defendants' attorney, Erin O'Boyle, was present via telephone. The Court, having ruled at the hearing, sets forth that ruling herein.
I. Sixth Motion to Compel (d/e 68)
Plaintiff filed a Sixth Motion to Compel seeking to compel Defendants to answer discovery asking whether any of the Defendants have ever been accused of any misconduct during their employment with the Illinois Department of Corrections and if so, provide when, with whom, and the "conclusion of the allegation." See Defendant Edwards' Answers to Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Interrogatories attached to the Motion to Compel (d/e 68) and setting forth the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also asserts that in the Fourth Set of Interrogatories, he asked Defendants to state whether they had ever been accused of assaulting an inmate and, if so, state when, against what inmate, and whether the allegations were brought via a court action.
Defendants objected to Plaintiff's motion. See d/e 70. Defendants asserted that the request is irrelevant and unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible, relevant evidence. Defendants further asserted that the information sought is confidential and its release may compromise the safety and security of the facilities. Defendants stated that "[i]t is a security concern for inmates to have the disciplinary records of the personnel meant to maintain the stability of the facility."
On May 17, 2012, this Court directed Defendants to submit to the Court, under seal, any of Defendants' personnel records relating to discipline imposed for the use of force or restraint. Defendants complied with the order and, on June 7, 2012, this Court set the matter for hearing on any objections to the production of any specific documents.
At the hearing, Defendants continued to object to the production of the documents, noting that the documents were confidential under Illinois law and that inmates are prohibited from possessing such documents.
The Sixth Motion to Compel is granted in part. Plaintiff shall have access to the documents at trial. The Court also summarized the documents for Plaintiff at the hearing as follows:
A. Re: Carlock. April 26, 2012 memorandum: Management agreed to reduce the discipline for Carlock to an oral reprimand re: Grievance No. 519326
B. Re: Carlock: Grievance No. 519326: AFSCME/State of Illinois Contract Grievance. Requested rescission of discipline and expungement of written reprimand.
C. Re Carlock: March 21, 2010 Memorandum: Employee Review Board report.
The report noted that the investigator concluded that all three staff failed to report the use of force against Inmate McGee and referred all three for discipline.
Notes that Carlock was charged with (1) failing to report; (2) failing to comply with Department Rules, written procedures, bulletins, or verbal orders. Concluded that Carlock did report, although probably not in the complete manner the investigator felt appropriate. Carlock did not use any force against Plaintiff, as Plaintiff admitted. Carlock should have reported Edwards' physical handling of Plaintiff. There was no support ...