United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Corizon Defendants'
second motion for protective order. ECF No. 97. Plaintiff
opposes the motion. ECF No. 98. For the reasons set forth
below, the motion will be granted.
motion is the most recent of several discovery-related
motions filed by the parties. On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff
filed a motion to compel challenging many of the Corizon
Defendants' responses to written discovery, and the
Corizon Defendants opposed the motion. ECF Nos. 88, 89. While
his motion to compel was pending, Plaintiff filed a motion to
compel Corizon, LLC, to produce its corporate representative
for deposition. ECF No. 90.
8, 2019, the Court entered a lengthy order addressing the
written discovery disputes raised in Plaintiff's motion
to compel (“May 8 Order”). ECF No. 91. On the
same day, the Corizon Defendants filed a motion for
protective order objecting to 15 out of 33 topics listed in
the notice to take the deposition of Corizon, LLC's
corporate representative, which was scheduled to take place
on May 24, 2019. ECF No. 92.
16, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice the Corizon
Defendants' motion for protective order and directed the
parties to meet and confer about the impact of the
Court's May 8 Order on Corizon's deposition topic
objections. The parties did so, and, on May 20, 2019, the
Corizon Defendants filed this second motion for protective
order addressing five topics on which the parties could not
agree. The Corizon corporate representative deposition is
scheduled for June 3, 2019.
in Topic No. 7 seeks “Committees' communications,
minutes, reports, consultations, investigations, or
evaluations regarding surgeries between 2008 and the present,
excluding those that specifically discuss an individual
patient's care, other than Plaintiff.” ECF No.
92-1. Plaintiff agreed to limit the topic to the facilities
at issue in this lawsuit between 2012 and the present.
Despite these limitations, the Corizon Defendants object to
the topic as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not
sufficiently limited in time and scope. Plaintiff responds
that the topic is sufficiently limited, as it is limited in
location and time, as well as to surgeries only.
Court previously held that although a similar request for
production was relevant, it was vague, overbroad, and
unlimited in time and scope as written. Here, Topic No. 7
is almost identical to that request for production, except
that it is further limited in time and scope. The Court finds
that the language remains vague and overbroad, and thus the
motion for protective order as to Topic No. 7 will be
No. 8 seeks “A copy of any historical data maintained
by Corizon regarding compliance with its policies and
procedures between 2012 to the present.” ECF No. 92-1.
Plaintiff agreed to limit the scope to specific policies and
procedures, including, inter alia, offering or
providing surgery to inmates and decisions to allow or
approve an inmate's requested medical care. The Court in
its May 8 Order held that that a similar request for
production was vague and overbroad. Here, while Plaintiff
properly limited the scope to certain policies and
procedures, the term “historical data” is vague.
Therefore, the Corizon Defendants' motion for protective
order as to Topic No. 8 will be granted.
Topic No. 31 seeks information about “all reports,
notices, warnings, lawsuits, memorandums, claims, and other
documents submitted to Corizon and/or Corizon's agents
since January 2010 arising from failure to offer or give
medical treatment and/or surgery to inmates.” The Court
in its May 8 Order addressed a similar request for production
directed to Corizon seeking all reports, complaints, notices,
warnings, lawsuits, memorandums, claims, and/or documents
submitted to Corizon since January 2010 arising from failure
to offer or give medical treatment and/or surgery to inmates.
There, the Court held that the request for production as
written was overbroad and irrelevant.
Plaintiff agreed to limit Topic No. 31 to all complaints and
lawsuits related to medical treatment at the facilities at
issue. However, even with this limitation, Topic No. 31
remains overbroad, and, in light of other holdings in this
district on similar discovery disputes, portions of Topic No.
31 are irrelevant. See Fletcher v. Tomlinson, No.
4:14-CV-999-RLW, 2015 WL 5093426, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 28,
2015) (holding that requests for information regarding other
lawsuits, administrative proceedings, and complaints
involving evidence of similar misconduct by the City was
overbroad in light of their limited relevance to the case);
Foster v. Lombardi, No. 1:12-CV-00116-JAR, 2013 WL
2251716, at *4 (E.D. Mo. May 22, 2013) (holding that the
plaintiffs request for information on other civil suits filed
against Corizon was not relevant or material to the
plaintiff's claims for deliberate indifference).
Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion for protective
order as to Topic No. 31.
Topics Nos. 32 and 33 ask whether Corizon has been a named
party in an action or complaint arising out of a failure to
provide inmates medical screenings, tests, surgery, or
medical procedures, and seek transcripts of previous Corizon
corporate representative depositions for those same matters.
The language of these deposition topics mirror the
information sought by Plaintiff in interrogatories that the
Court in its May 8 Order held were irrelevant in light of
Fletcher and Tomlinson. Accordingly, the
Court will grant the motion for protective order as to Topics
Nos. 32 and 33.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Corizon
Defendants' second motion for protective order is
GRANTED. ECF No. 97.