Jacksonn v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

1

YOLANDA JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., EVA LEVEN, MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, GAIL WALLS, NICKOLAS MITCHELL, CHARLIE FRERKING, JEREMY FRERICH, and ANDREW BENNETT, Defendants.

No. 3:20-cv-00900-DWD

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 5, 2023

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DAVID W. DUGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Plaintiff's Supplemental Motions to Compel (Docs. 139 & 142), which are directed at Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”). Defendant Wexford filed Responses to the Supplemental Motions to Compel (Docs. 146 & 147), to which Plaintiff replied (Docs. 150 & 151). For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS each Supplemental Motion to Compel (Docs. 139 & 142).

I. Background

Decedent Kevin Curtis, died while incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. (Doc. 1, ¶ 1). Shortly before his death Decedent allegedly received inadequate medical care from Defendants after he fell into a catatonic and unresponsive state. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2630). Plaintiff, as the mother and administrator of Decedent's estate, filed a 6-count Complaint against Defendants. (Doc. 1, generally). Specifically, Plaintiff alleged deliberate indifference by all Defendants under the Eighth Amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I), a conspiracy by all Defendants under § 1983 (Count II), a failure to intervene by all Defendants under the Eighth Amendment and § 1983 (Count III), a wrongful death action against all Defendants under 740 ILCS 180/1 (Count IV), a survival action against all Defendants under 755 ILCS 5/27-6 (Count V), and respondeat superior liability against Defendant Wexford (Count VI). (Doc. 1, generally). Plaintiff alleged, “there exist policies and/or widespread practices in IDOC pursuant to which prisoners receive unconstitutionally inadequate healthcare.” (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 55-61, 68, 73).

Plaintiff initially filed Motions to Compel (Docs. 95 & 106) on September 28 and November 18, 2022. Thereafter, Defendant Wexford filed its related Responses (Docs. 102 & 110). However, the parties did not comply with the “Discovery Dispute” provisions of the Court's Case Management Procedures, which the Court mandates before its consideration of any motion to compel. (Doc. 121). Therefore, on January 12, 2023, the parties were ordered to meet and conduct a discovery conference to discuss all unresolved discovery disputes. (Doc. 121). The parties were given a deadline to submit a joint written discovery report, related to the unresolved discovery disputes and the Motions to Compel, to the Court. (Doc. 121). The parties complied with these directives, so the matter was set for a Discovery Dispute Conference with the Court. (Doc. 136).

At that Discovery Dispute Conference, which was held on March 30, 2023, the Court considered Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and the parties' Joint Written Discovery Report, which outlined, inter alia, six areas that remained in dispute. At the Discovery Dispute Conference, four of the six disputed areas were either deferred, resolved by the Court, or resolved by agreement. (Doc. 138). Therefore, after the Discovery Dispute Conference, only two areas, related to Plaintiff's Motions to Compel, remained in dispute. (Doc. 138). With respect to those two areas of dispute, the Court deferred ruling and directed the parties to meet and confer about whether the outstanding issues could be resolved without the involvement of the Court. (Doc. 138). If necessary, after the meet and confer, Plaintiff was directed to file Supplemental Motions to Compel. (Doc. 138).

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed Supplemental Motions to Compel (Docs. 139 & 142), as permitted by the Court's Order at Doc. 138.^[1] Defendant Wexford filed Responses to the Supplemental Motions to Compel (Docs. 146 & 147) on April 28, 2023. Thereafter, on May 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed Replies (Docs. 150 & 151) in support of the Supplemental otions to Compel. A discussion of these filings is incorporated into the analysis below.

II. Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the scope of discovery, unless otherwise limited by the Court, is as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and [is] 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

The Court has “extensive discretion” to decide discovery matters. See Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Comms. Corp., 365 F.Supp.3d 916, 924 (N.D. Ill. 2019); see also Searls v. Glasser, 64 F.3d 1061, 1068 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Because the district court is far better situated to pass on discovery matters, [the Seventh Circuit] review[s] its discovery decisions for an abuse of discretion.”). Courts may refuse discovery of matters that are “of ‘marginal relevance,' ” and it is an assessment of proportionality that is essential. See Motorola Solutions, Inc., 365 F.Supp. at 924 (citation to internal quotations omitted); see also Armour v. Santos, No. 19-cv-678, 2022 WL 16572006, *2 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2022) (stating “relevancy” is broadly construed to encompass matters bearing on, or reasonably leading to matters bearing on, issues in the case, and “proportionality” requires a common sense, experiential, careful, and realistic assessment of the actual need).

Likewise, decisions on motions to compel discovery are within the broad discretion of the Court. See Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447, 450 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (citing Meyer v. Southern Pacific Lines, 199 F.R.D. 610, 611 (N.D. Ill. 2001)). Notably, when ruling on motions to compel, “ ‘courts have consistently adopted a liberal interpretation of the discovery rules.' [Citation].” See id. (quoting Wilstein v. San Tropai Condo. Master Ass'n, 189 F.R.D. 371, 375 (N.D. Ill. 1999)); accord Traffix USA, Inc. v. Bay, No. 21-cv-2093, 2022 WL 2046282, *2 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2022). With these general legal principles in mind, the Court turns to the separate Supplemental Motions to Compel.

A. Plaintiff's First Supplemental Motion to Compel (Doc. 139)^[2]

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Wexford to produce certain quality assurance documents, including eight documents named in Defendant Wexford's privilege log, peer review documents created by and relating to Defendant Wexford and its employees, and documents reflecting audits of the healthcare services at Menard Correctional Center. (Doc. 139, pg. 1). Defendant Wexford is withholding those documents based on Illinois state-law privileges, namely, the privileges contained in the Illinois Medical Studies Act (735 ILCS 5/8-2101) and the Illinois Long-Term Care Peer Review and Quality Assessment and Assurance Protection Act (745 ILCS 55/1 et seq.). (Doc. 139, pgs. 1, 5). Section 8-201 of the Illinois Medical Studies Act, in part, states:

All information, interviews, reports, statements, memoranda, recommendations, letters of reference or other third party confidential assessments of a health care practitioner's professional competence, or other data of.. .[certain public health and other medical entities], used in the course of internal quality control or of medical study for the purpose of reducing morbidity or mortality, or for improving patient care or increasing organ and tissue donation, shall be privileged, strictly confidential and shall be used only for medical research, increasing organ and tissue donation, the evaluation and improvement of quality care, or granting, limiting or revoking staff privileges or agreements for services.

735 ILCS 5/8-2101; see also Green v. Meeks, No. 20-cv-463, 2023 WL 1447817, *2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2023) (“The [Illinois Medical Studies Act, Section 8-2101,] ‘protects the records, reports, notes, and the like, of hospitals, hospital committees, medical societies, and other review groups used in the course of internal quality control or medical study for the purpose of improving morbidity and mortality, or for improving patient care.' ”).

Likewise, Section 55/4 of the Illinois Long-Term Care Peer Review and Quality Assessment and Assurance Protection Act, in part, provides:

All proceedings and communications of a peer review or a quality assessment and assurance committee shall be privileged and confidential and shall not be revealed except pursuant to specific written procedures of the sponsoring organization.

The proceedings and records of such a committee shall be held in confidence, and shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a long-term care professional or facility arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee....However, information, documents or records otherwise available from original sources shall not be construed as immune from discovery or use in any such civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of such committee.

745 ILCS 55/4.

Notwithstanding these privileges, Plaintiff argues the above-described documents must be produced for three reasons: (1) the Illinois state-law privileges do not apply in this federal question case; (2) even if the Court entertained Defendant Wexford's arguments, other courts have rejected requests for a federal peer-review privilege; and (3) the Illinois state-law privileges do not protect the requested documents. (Doc. 139, pg. 2). The Court limits...