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.

Smado v. Brookhart

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 17, 2018

SCOTT SMADO, Plaintiff,
v.
DEE DEE BROOKHART, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          HON. REONA J. DALY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Scott Smado filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. He is proceeding in this matter on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Brookhart, Williams, Osmoundson, James, Shah, Martin, and Rains for denying him adequate medical care following his hip surgery in June 2015. This matter is now before the Court on several pending motions filed by Plaintiff (Docs. 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 88, and 89). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motions and any responses thereto, and its rulings are set forth as follows.

         1. Motion for Status and Clarification (Doc. 76)

         Plaintiff asks for the status of his motion for leave to file an amended complaint filed on October 31, 2017 (Doc. 62) and his motion for recruitment of counsel filed in December 2017 (Doc. 68). Plaintiff also indicates that he does not know how to proceed at this point. Insofar as Plaintiff asks for the status of his motion to amend and motion for counsel, his Motion is GRANTED. Insofar as Plaintiff seeks any other relief in his motion, it is DENIED. Plaintiff is ADVISED that his motion for counsel was denied on January 8, 2018 (Doc. 74), and his motion to amend was found moot on February 12, 2018 (Doc. 80).

         2. Motion to Compel (Doc. 77)

         In this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants Williams, James, Osmoundson, and Shah to release all of the relevant documents he requested in his second request for production of documents. In particular, Plaintiff sets forth responses to Defendants' objections to requests 1, 3, 4-6, 8, 11, 13-14, 15, and 17-18.

         In request number 1, Plaintiff seeks all incident reports, investigatory reports, and photos of the scene where the fall occurred. Defendants object to the request asserting it is vague, ambiguous and capable of differing interpretations as to what “fall” Plaintiff refers to. In his response, Plaintiff asserts his request relates to the fall that occurred in the AC-10 storage room on June 12, 2015. In light of the clarification provided by Plaintiff, his motion to compel a supplemental response to request number one is GRANTED. Request one shall be limited to the fall that occurred on June 12, 2015. Defendants are ORDERED to provide a supplemental response by May 4, 2018.

         In request number 3, Plaintiff seeks inventory logs of any and all equipment, climbing devices, and safety equipment within the storage room AC-10 from January 1, 2010 to date. Defendants object to this request asserting it seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Plaintiff contends that this request seeks relevant information as it will show there are no ladders, climbing devices, or safety equipment for climbing the shelving units in the AC-10 storage room where he fell on June 12, 2015. Plaintiff's request to compel a supplemental response is DENIED. The information he seeks is not relevant to the claims pending against Defendants in this lawsuit.

         In requests 4, 5, and 6, Plaintiff seeks any and all dates when cameras were installed in the AC-10 storage room, any and all documents pertaining to the installation of cameras in the AC-10 storage room, and all camera footage from the AC-10 storage room from the date of installation to date. Defendants object to these requests asserting they seek the production of materials that are not relevant to the claim or defense of any party. The Court agrees. Plaintiff's motion to compel supplemental responses to requests 4-6 is DENIED.

         In request number 8, Plaintiff seeks any and all work orders to fix, repair, or destroy all healthcare equipment, including wheelchairs, and handicap equipment from January 1, 2017 to date. Defendants indicate they had found no responsive documents, but their investigation continues. Plaintiff responded by indicating he sought all work orders submitted to the maintenance department to fix the handicap shower chair within the infirmary shower of the health care unit from June 28, 2015 to July 28, 2015. Insofar as Defendants have provided an adequate response to Plaintiff's request, his motion to compel is DENIED. Defendants are reminded they are under a continuing obligation to supplement their response under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) if additional information is discovered.

         In request number 11, Plaintiff seeks all documents relating to the job description and duties of all defendants in this case. Defendants responded by indicating they would produce the job descriptions for the positions they held at the material times alleged in the complaint insofar as they are involved therein, following the entry of a protective order regarding the production of such documents. Plaintiff asserts that the documents he seeks are relevant in helping him prepare his case for trial and to offer the appropriate proof against the defendants. Defendants' response is adequate; accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this request is DENIED. It appears, however, that Defendants have not sought entry of a protective order concerning the above-mentioned documents. If the documents have not yet been produced for this reason, Defendants are ADVISED to seek a protective order and provide the documents as soon as practicable.

         In requests 13 and 14, Plaintiff seeks inventory logs and records of the tools and equipment stored in the healthcare unit supply room, including screwdrivers, pliers, wrenches, and wheelchairs, as well as statements and logs of all staff who have keys to access the tool case where screwdrivers, pliers, and wrenches are stored in the healthcare unit supply room. Defendants object to these requests asserting they seek the production of materials that are not relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Plaintiff contends these records are relevant because it will show the deliberate indifference by Defendant Martin in refusing to tighten Plaintiff's hip brace. The Court disagrees. The records sought in these requests are not relevant to the claims pending in this lawsuit and Plaintiff's motion to compel a response to the same is DENIED.

         In request 15, Plaintiff seeks all documents, records, log books, and bed charts for the infirmary of the healthcare unit from March 1, 2016 to June 1, 2016. Defendants object to this request, asserting it seeks information not relevant to the claim or defense of any party, is overly broad in requesting “all documents” within the infirmary, does not describe the requested materials with sufficient particularity, and the burden or expense of production outweighs the likely benefit in proportion to the needs of the case. Plaintiff contends these documents are relevant to this case because they will show that his bed in the infirmary remained empty for weeks after Defendant Shah placed him in population. While the Court is mindful of the connection Plaintiff is attempting to make, these documents are not relevant to the claims in this lawsuit. Moreover, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff's request is overly broad. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel as to request 15 is DENIED.

         In requests 17 and 18, Plaintiff seeks all statements or memorandum of statements of any persons having knowledge of this case or facts concerning this case, as well as all statements or memorandum of statements and lists of any and all witnesses which defendants plan to use. Defendants object to these requests asserting Plaintiff is seeking information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney/client and/or insurer/insured privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED. ...


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.