Dence v. Wellpath, LLC

1

CONNIE DENCE, as personal representative for the Estate of Janelle Marie Butterfield, Plaintiff, v. WELLPATH, LLC; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; CARLY HINKLE; DAWN CASE; OPTIONS FOR SOUTHERN OREGON, INC.; MERRICK KELLY-ROBINSON; JOSEPHINE COUNTY; DAVE DANIEL; AMANDA WASS; CRYSTAL HULSEY; VIVEK SHAH; PATRICIA SHEVOKIS; ED VINCENT; and CLINT MOONEY, Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00671-CL

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division

October 25, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

MARK D. CLARKE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (ECF No. 83). Plaintiff Connie Dence (“Plaintiff'), as personal representative of the Estate of Janelle Marie Butterfield (“Butterfield”), filed this action against Defendants in April 2020. Plaintiff asserts deliberate indifference claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a negligence claim and a gross negligence/reckless misconduct claim under Oregon state law. First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 121-140, ECF No. 36 (“FAC”). For the reasons below, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2018, Butterfield was1 arrested and taken to the Josephine County Jail. Id. ¶ 69. Plaintiff alleges Defendants knew Butterfield had a history of mental illness, substance abuse, and superficiality because of her prior stays at the Josephine County Jail. Id. ¶¶ 41-68.

When Butterfield was booked into the jail, she was tased and placed in a restraint chair because of her behavior. Id. ¶¶ 71-83. Jail staff noted Butterfield had mental health concerns, and

Defendant Wellpath's employee prescribed an antipsychotic medication for Butterfield without first seeing her in person. Id. Jail staff placed Butterfield in segregated housing, thereby restricting her out-of-cell time and her contact with other people. Id. ¶¶ 84-85. Butterfield's antipsychotic medication was discontinued after two weeks. Id: ¶¶ 78-94.

Butterfield was held at the Josephine County Jail until she died by suicide on September 5, 2018. Id. ¶ 102. During that time, Plaintiff alleges no doctor, nurse practitioner or nurse saw Butterfield. Pl.'s Mot. Compel 6, ECF No. 83 (“Pl.'s Mot”). Plaintiff also alleges that Butterfield did not receive any mental health care during her time at the Josephine County Jail. Id. at 7.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b) describes the scope of discovery, in relevant part, 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. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a party seeking discovery to bring a motion to compel responses to discovery. The resisting party carries the heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). The resisting party must show the discovery request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, or disproportional in light of “the issues at stake.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). In order to meet this heavy burden, the resisting party must detail, with specificity, the reasons why each request is improper; “[b]oilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to making no objection at all.” S.E.C. v. Banc de Binary, 2014 WL 5506780, at *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 30, 2014). “Under Rule 34 a party is not required to prepare new documents; the Rule only requires a party to produce documents that already exist.” Perales v. Thomas, No. 10-cv-01314- . BR, 2012 WL 4760872, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 4, 2012) (citing Alexander v. FBI, 194 F.R.D. 305, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2000)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed a 65-page motion to compel that addresses (1) Plaintiff's initial and supplemental requests for production, (2) Plaintiffs requests for admission, and (3) depositions. See Pl.'s Mot. 5, ECF No. 83. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Requests for Production

RFP No. 2: “Plaintiff requested ‘all contracts and agreements in effect between any defendants in November 2016.”' Pl.'s Mot. 11. While Plaintiff received relevant documents from Defendant Josephine County, certain payment amounts were redacted per Wellpath Defendants' request. Id., Plaintiff argues Wellpath Defendants' financial motives are relevant to the issues in this case. Id. Wellpath Defendants represent that they produced unredacted contracts covering the period Butterfield spent in the Josephine County Jail, but argue that the costs of the medical contract from 2019 through 2020 are not relevant to Butterfield's care in 2018. Defs.' Resp. 8, ECF No. 93. The Court concludes these costs are relevant and orders Wellpath Defendants to produce unredacted copies of the medical contracts.

RFP. No. 3: “Plaintiff requested the ‘personnel files, including performance evaluations and disciplinary records,' for each of the named Wellpath defendants (Carly Hinkle, Dawn Case, Amada Wass, Krystal Hulsey, Dr. Vivek Shah, and Patricia Shevokis).” Pl.'s Mot. 12-13. Specifically, Plaintiff argues Wellpath Defendants have failed to produce: (1) any personnel file for Krystal Hulsey; and (2) personnel files for the other individual Wellpath Defendants after the date of Butterfield's death. Id. The Court finds that the requested documents are relevant and orders Wellpath Defendants to produce the personnel file for Krystal Hulsey and complete personnel files for the other individual Wellpath Defendants past the date of Butterfield's death.

RFP No. 4: “Plaintiff requested ‘all documents and materials reflecting any policies, procedures, customs, practices, training or guidance applicable to the Josephine County Jail, and to personnel working in the Josephine County Jail' during the time period that Ms. Butterfield was held in the jail.” Id. at 13. Plaintiff argues that producing complete versions of all policies - and procedures is not unduly burdensome because this case involves numerous issues with the medical program at the Josephine County Jail. Id. at 14. This Court finds that production will not be overly burdensome and that the requested documents are relevant to the issues in this case. As such, this Court orders Wellpath Defendants to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs request for production.

RFP No. 11: “Plaintiff requested ‘a corporate organizational chart for Wellpath, LLC from the July-October 2018 time frame, including the corporate organization in Oregon.'” Id. at 15. Plaintiff later agreed to narrow the request to “any organizational charts that reference Wellpath/CCS staff at the Josephine County Jail[.]” Id. Wellpath Defendants respond that they have searched for an organizational chart and do not have such a document for Josephine County. Wellpath Defs.' Resp. 11. Plaintiff's motion is denied because Wellpath Defendants cannot produce a document that does not exist. See Perales, 2012 WL 4760872, at *1.

RFP No. 13: “Plaintiff requested ‘the monthly billing sent by Wellpath, LLC to Josephine County for medical and mental health services in the Josephine County Jail for all of 2018.'” Pl.'s Mot. 15. Plaintiff argues Wellpath Defendants' financial motives are central to the issues in this case because the Josephine County Jail's medical and mental health programs were deliberately understaffed to cut costs. Id. at 16. The Court finds that these documents are relevant and orders Wellpath Defendants to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff's request for production.

RFP No. 15: “Plaintiff requested ‘copies of any lawsuits filed against Wellpath, LLC, or its predecessors, in the last ten years in which the plaintiff claimed inadequate or inappropriate medical care was provided in a jail or prison facility in which Wellpath LLC, or its predecessors, were providing medical care.'” Id. Plaintiff later limited the request to “‘all lawsuits related to mental health, mental illness, or lack of medication.'” Id. Wellpath Defendants objected on the grounds of overbreadth, undue burden, and relevance. Defs.' Resp. 11. Specifically, Wellpath Defendants argue that “a complaint is not evidence, much less proof that the allegations were true or were found to be false.” Id. Wellpath Defendants also argue HIPAA applies to these previous lawsuits because all plaintiffs were previously “patients” and therefore their lawsuits contain “identifiable health information.” Id. at 12.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's revised request is not overbroad, unduly burdensome, or irrelevant to the extent Plaintiff seeks information about lawsuits filed within the last five years. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”). Additionally, the Court is not persuaded by Wellpath Defendants' assertion that publicly available information is “identifiable health information” within the meaning of HIPAA. As such, the Court orders Wellpath Defendants to produce copies of lawsuits related to mental health, mental illness, or lack of medication filed against Wellpath, LLC, or its predecessors, in the last five years in which a plaintiff claimed inadequate or inappropriate medical care was provided in a jail or prison facility where Wellpath, LLC, or its predecessors provided medical care.

RFP No. 19: “Plaintiff requested ‘a current...