MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GERALDINE SOAT BROWN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. [Dkt 142.] For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice.
Plaintiffs are two certified classes of current and former inmates who have sued defendants Sheriff of Cook County ("Sheriff") and Cook County ("County") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the Cook County Jail ("Jail") denied adequate dental services to inmates who suffered acute dental pain, and thus defendants violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) class consists of "[a]ll persons presently confined at the Cook County Jail who are experiencing dental pain and who have waited more than seven days after making a written request for treatment of that pain without having been examined by a dentist." (Mem. Op. and Order, Nov. 18, 2010 at 15.) [Dkt 68.] The Rule 23(b)(3) class is defined as "[a]ll inmates housed at Cook County Department of Corrections on or after January 1, 2007, who made a written request for dental care because of acute pain and who suffered prolonged and unnecessary pain because of lack of treatment." (Mem. Op. and Order, Aug. 17, 2011 at 11.) [Dkt 93.]
Plaintiffs move to compel defendants to produce two requested sets of documents: identifying information about persons processed into the Cook County Jail after July 21, 2011, and "documents prepared in connection with budget requests for dental services at the Cook County Jail and/or Cermak Health Services for each year from 2006 to the present." (Pls.' Mot. at 1.) Defendants object to both requests.
Under the federal rules, subject to certain limitations, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). "[T]he court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed... if it determines that... the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). A party may file a motion to compel disclosure or discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). "The burden rests upon the objecting party to show why a particular discovery request is improper." Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Protec. Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447, 450 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
I. Identifying Information
First, plaintiffs request that the Sheriff produce "in computer readable form" fourteen items of identifying information for "all persons processed into Cook County Jail from July 21, 2011 to December 31, 2012, " specifically, the name, address, date of birth, home phone number, social security number, date of booking, booking number, inmate ID, release date, and the reason for release of the processed person. (Pls.' Mot., Ex. 3.) Plaintiffs refer to this information as "the ESI, " and state that defendants produced the ESI for prisoners processed into the Jail through July 20, 2011 in another inmate class action regarding property slips at the Jail, Elizarri v. Sheriff of Cook County, N.D.Ill. No. 07-cv-2427. (Pls.' Mot. at 2 n.1.) Plaintiffs also state that similar ESI has been produced in other cases involving treatment of detainees at the Jail. (Pls.' Suppl. at 3.) [Dkt 146.]
The Sheriff objects to the request as overly broad. (Sheriff Resp.) [Dkt 149.] The Sheriff states that the request includes "documentation for approximately 150, 000 detainees during the relevant time period" while the estimated size of the classes over the class period is about 1, 900 people. (Sheriff's Resp. at 2.) It is not clear from the Sheriff's response (which is not supported by any affidavit or other evidence) whether the 150, 000 number refers to detainees during the entire class period (from 2007 to present) or the period covered by the subject request (July 21, 2011 to December 2012). It seems more likely to be the former than the latter.
As a compromise, the Sheriff offers to produce identifying information for those persons processed into the Cook County Jail after July 2011 who have filed dental grievances. ( Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs counter that the Sheriff's offer is insufficient because the classes are defined as including those inmates who "made a written request, " and, according to plaintiffs, "a detainee will only submit a grievance after the Jail has failed to respond to his (or her) written requests for dental care." (Pls.' Reply at 4.) [Dkt 152.] Furthermore, the Sheriff's offer seems at odds with the Sheriff's objection to producing dental grievances for the class because it would require an individual search of detainee files. (Pl.'s Mot. Ex. 4.) Sheriff's counsel's stated in correspondence that "there is no Electronically Stored Data (ESI) in the Sheriff's possession that contains detainee grievances delineated by the grievance subject matter." ( Id. )
In sum, plaintiffs' request is overinclusive because not all people processed into the Jail will be members of the two classes, and the Sheriff's proposal is potentially underinclusive because there could be inmates who submitted a written request but never filed a grievance.
An unfortunate by-product of the same attorneys having been involved in a number of cases involving the Jail is the fact that they apparently forget that this court has had limited - or no - involvement in those other cases and does not have the background in this case that the attorneys do. The parties' briefs assume too much about this court's knowledge of what has happened in discovery in this and other cases. Furthermore, the mere fact that documents were produced in another case with a different claim and a different class does not, of itself, provide a basis for requiring production in this case. Notwithstanding the court's direction that the plaintiffs state "what, precisely, they are asking the court to compel defendants to do or produce" (Order, April 12, 2013 [dkt 145]), the parties' briefs do not include important facts such as whether the information that plaintiff seeks currently exists in the format plaintiffs request ("computer readable form") or whether plaintiffs are seeking an order that would require the Sheriff to create a database of that information.
Other than the fact that similar production was ordered in other cases, plaintiffs' argument for the requested production is a conclusory statement that they need the updated information in order to evaluate the viability of prospective injunctive relief for the Rule 23(b)(2) class and to assess the "extent of defendants' liability for inadequate dental services" for the Rule 23(b)(3) class. (Pls.' Mot. at 5-6.) It is not clear what plaintiffs' counsel intends to do with the information or how it will be used in this case. Since neither party has informed the court whether the data currently exists in a "computer readable form, " the court is reluctant to issue an order compelling the Sheriff to create a database that may not exist. Finally, the parties should engage in further ...