Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Pursley v. Williams

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

October 24, 2017

PATRICK PURSLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN TARRY WILLIAMS, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SALVADORE GODINEZ, DOCTOR SALEH OBAISI, KEVIN HOLLARAN and RANDY PFISTER, Defendants.

          Hon. Virginia M. Kendall Judge.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          M. DAVID WEISMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter involves claims of constitutional violations based on Defendants' alleged failure to provide appropriate medical care, and the conditions of confinement under which Plaintiff was being held. Plaintiff was an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, which is part of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). According to the controlling complaint, Plaintiff has been released from custody because he was wrongfully convicted. (Dkt. 102 at ¶ 14.) Defendants Obaisi and Hollaran (hereinafter “Defendants”) have filed a motion for a protective order, essentially seeking to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss is resolved by the district court [110].[1] Plaintiff opposed the motion, seeking to proceed with discovery in general, and the discovery requests at issue in the instant motion. For the reasons explained herein, as well as those reasons stated on the record, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion for a protective order but provides other relief as detailed below.

         The controlling complaint contains three counts and alleges the following constitutional violations: (1) cruel and unusual punishment and (2) denial of medical care. (Dkt. 102 at pp. 11- 21.)

         To prosecute these claims, Plaintiff has tendered 20 interrogatories and 49 requests to produce. In addition to the sheer number of discovery requests, the four pages of included instructions and definitions (discussed further below) create an extremely large breadth of meaning and scope of required response.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 requires that the parties, counsel, and the Court construe the federal rules in a way that secures “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (emphasis added). This rule is entitled to the same consideration and control as every other federal rule of procedure. Additionally, Rule 26 defines the appropriate scope of discovery as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). This opinion is animated primarily by the principles contained in these two rules - principles that Plaintiff's discovery requests fail to reflect.

         Here are some examples of the completely untethered approach to discovery embodied in Plaintiff's requests:

In Interrogatory #3, Plaintiff requests a statement under oath as to all complaints “ever” made about medical care or prison conditions. This request is not limited to a lawsuit or even a formal grievance because “complaint” as defined by Plaintiff includes “any complaint or criticism relating in any manner to the job performance of any Defendant.” (See Dkt. 110-1 at Definition #10 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff further demands an explanation as to how each of these “criticisms” was resolved. The Court notes that this incredibly broad request is echoed in other discovery requests. For example, Interrogatory #4 includes a similar request about any “complaint” (read to include “criticism”) “ever . . . made against” a defendant as to constitutional violations.

         In Interrogatory #15, Plaintiff requests a narrative answer describing “any and all changes made in the last fifteen years . . . relating to . . . providing medical care to inmates.” While that request is exceedingly broad, its actual scope is exponentially broader as “relating to” is defined to include “being connected with, reflecting upon, or having any logical or factual connection with a stated subject matter.” (Id. at Definition #12 (emphasis added).) Such a broadly framed request would be difficult to defend in any case; it is indefensible in light of Plaintiff's current allegations as to lack of medical care which are limited to a respiratory infection and rib injury. (Dkt. 102 at ¶¶ 39-48.)

         Request to Produce Document #12 seeks inter alia “communications of any kind” between a defendant “and any person who may have discoverable information or knowledge of the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint.” (Dkt. 110-2 at RFP #12.) As framed, this expansive request would include all communications between Dr. Obaisi and a member of his clinical staff who may have had contact with Plaintiff. The clinical staff member “may” have information related to the incident, and the request is not limited to communications about Plaintiff. Instead, the request seeks “communications of any kind.” Thus, this request would likely include a multitude of communications related to other inmates, including some of their most private information regarding their physical and medical condition. Further aggravating the problem is that the breadth of this request is broadened even more by the policy allegations as to insufficient medical care alleged in the Revised First Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 102.) Thus, this discovery request would seemingly obligate Dr. Obaisi to produce any communication of any kind between himself and a member of his medical staff.

         Request to Produce #31 seeks all documents related to “treatment of prisoners at Stateville by an outside healthcare provider.” (Dkt. 110-2 at RFP #31.) Plaintiff does not even allege that he was denied access to an outside healthcare provider. (See Dkt. 102 at ¶¶ 39-48.)

         Request to Produce #43 seeks documents identifying the policymakers responsible for any “policy, procedure or practice” identified in Request to Produce #30. (Dkt. 110-2 at RFP #30, 43.) Yet, Request to Produce #30 does not seek policy information. Similarly, Request to Produce #44 seeks documents related to “policymakers” involved in Request to Produce ...


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.