Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Douglas Martinez v. Cook County

December 12, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Virginia M. Kendall


Plaintiff Douglas Martinez ("Martinez") filed suit against Cook County, Sheriff Thomas Dart, and Officer McKnight (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging he was injured by inmates at the Cook County Department of Corrections ("the CCDOC") as a result of Defendants' failure to adequately supervise the facility in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq . Martinez seeks to compel discovery of documents requested in his November 23, 2011 Notice to Produce. For the reasons stated below, Martinez's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery is granted in part and denied in part.


On November 23, 2011, Martinez sent Defendants a Notice to Produce various documents through discovery. The Notice included requests for the following: (1) a letter produced by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney's Office ("the DOJ Letter") *fn1 (Pl. Notice, ¶ 14); *fn2 (2) various documents and correspondences related to or cited within the DOJ Letter (collectively, "Related Documents") *fn3 (Pl. Notice, ¶¶ 15--21); (3) "tier sheets" for Tier 2A of Division XI of the CCDOC and the two tiers directly above and below Tier 2A for the one-year period ending April 25, 2010 (Pl. Notice, ¶ 22.); and (4) documents related to jail funding and staffing at the CCDOC. (Pl. Notice, ¶ 23--24.) On April 14, 2012, after repeated assurance from Defendants that the documents would be provided, Martinez sent a compliance letter to Defendants. Within a week, Defendants produced to Martinez, via e-mail, numerous documents that partially complied with Martinez's Notice to Produce. Defendants assured Martinez that full compliance was forthcoming.

In either March or April, 2012, Defendants learned that Martinez did not need tier sheets for Tier 2A of Division XI, but rather tier sheets for Tier 2A of Division VI. Martinez requested that Defendants conduct a second search for tier sheets, this time for Tier 2A of Division VI. Sheriff Dart's office complied with Defendants' new request by producing copies of the Division VI tier sheets on August 9 and August 15, 2012. Upon receiving the tier sheets, Martinez informed Defendants that he had mistaken tier sheets for log sheets, and orally changed his request for a second time, this time asking for log sheets pertaining to Division VI for the one year period ending April 25, 2010. Defendants state they are currently in the process of making arrangements for an inspection at Division VI, where Martinez's counsel will be allowed to review the requested log sheets and copy what he feels is necessary for discovery.

Meanwhile, between July 26 and September 4, 2012, Defendants formally responded to Martinez's Notice to Produce and the parties were able to work through several other discovery issues. Defendants did not, however, produce the DOJ Letter, Related Documents, or documents pertaining to jail funding and staffing. Martinez seeks an Order compelling Defendants to produce the DOJ Letter, Related Documents, and information related to funding and staffing in Cook County prisons. Martinez asserts that Defendants, by failing to timely object, have waived all objections to his requests. Defendants maintain their objections are timely because delays in the discovery process were occasioned by both parties, and are partially attributable to Martinez's shifting discovery requests. Defendants further assert that the DOJ Letter and Related Documents are inadmissible, unlikely to produce admissible evidence at trial, and irrelevant. Lastly, Defendants argue that Martinez's request for production of divisional staffing reports, post analysis reports, and weekly divisional reports are overly vague.


The federal notice pleading system contemplates that parties will have broad discovery to investigate the facts and to help define and clarify the issues. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders , 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978); United States v. Farley , 11 F.3d 1385, 1390 (7th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) gives broad power to discover information "regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). "Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. See also Oppenheimer , 437 U.S. at 351 (information is relevant if it "bears on" or might reasonably lead to information that "bears on" any material fact or issue in the action); EEOC v. Konica Minolta Bus. Solutions U.S.A., Inc. , 639 F.3d 366, 369 (7th Cir. 2011). Because discovery is concerned with "relevant information"-not "relevant evidence"-the scope of relevance for discovery purposes is necessarily broader than it is for trial evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. See, e.g., Konica Minolta , 639 F.3d at 369 (EEOC subpoena); EEOC v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 287 F.3d 643, 649 (7th Cir. 2002) (EEOC subpoena) (citing United States v. Arthur Young & Co. , 465 U.S. 805, 814) (1984) (IRS subpoena)). However, liberal discovery does not mean unlimited discovery, Oppenheimer , 437 U.S. at 351--52, and Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and dictate its sequence. Crawford-El v. Britton , 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998).

Motions to compel discovery are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which requires the movant to certify that it has tried in good faith the resolve the discovery dispute without court interference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). Furthermore, under Local Rule 37.2, the moving party must show that (1) after consultation in person or by telephone and good faith attempts to resolve differences the parties are unable to reach an accord, or (2) counsel's attempts to engage in such consultation were unsuccessful due to no fault of counsel's. L.R. 37.2. District courts enjoy broad discretion when considering motions to compel, Packman v. Chicago Tribune Co. , 267 F3d 628, 646 (7th Cir. 2001), and have "consistently adopted a liberal interpretation of the discovery rules." See, e.g., Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist. , 235 F.R.D. 447, 450 (N.D. Ill. 2006) ( quoting Wilstein v. San Tropai Condominium Master Assoc. , 189 F.R.D. 371, 375 (N.D. Ill. 1999)).


Martinez has satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and has complied with Local Rule 37.2. First, Martinez has demonstrated he made good faith efforts to resolve discovery issues with Defendants before filing his Renewed Motion to Compel. Martinez provided a detailed timeline of his communication with Defendants' counsel, dates on which Defendants' counsel partially complied with Martinez's request, and explained the extent to which Defendants have not complied. Accordingly, Martinez's Renewed Motion to Compel is properly before the Court.

I. Timeliness of Defendants' Objections

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b), which governs the production of documents and electronically stored information, a party must respond in writing to a request for documents within 30 days of being served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A). A party's failure to timely object to discovery requests without demonstrating good cause for the delay may result in a waiver of all objections that could otherwise have been asserted. *fn4 See Autotech Technologies Ltd. Partnership v., Inc. , 236 F.R.D. 396, 398 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (citing Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc. , 959 F.2d 69, 74 (7th Cir. 1992)). See also ; Hobley v. Burge , No. 03-3678, 2004 WL 1687005, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2004) (applying waiver rule to discovery objection based on privilege); Ritacca v. Abbott Laboratories , 203 F.R.D. 332, 335 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (same).

Here, Martinez sent his initial Notice to Produce in November of 2011. While Martinez's discovery requests with respect to CCDOC tier sheets changed significantly in April and again in August of 2012, Martinez made no changes to his requests for the DOJ Letter or Related Documents. Nor did he make changes to his request for information pertaining to the CCDOC's staffing and funding. Therefore, any confusion on Martinez's part with respect to other discovery materials did not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.