Ludy v. Emmons et al, No. 3:2016cv00065 - Document 115 (S.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 113 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court SUSTAINS in part and OVERRULES in part Defendants' partial objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order of September 11, 2018. It is Ordered that Defendants shall supplement their production by November 2, 2018, with any additional documents responsive to Plaintiff's Requests Numbers 1, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 13 in accordance with this Order. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 10/12/2018. (maa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ludy v. Emmons et al Doc. 115 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURi AUCL!STy\ DiV. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2018 OCT 12 PM 3:57 DUBLIN DIVISION CLERK. SO. O S MITCHELL LUDY, GA. Plaintiff, CV 316-065 V. DEANNE MORRIS, Health Service Administrator; CHERIE PRICE, Deputy Warden; WESLEY O'NEAL, Unit Manager; and JESSICA BYRD, Correctional Officer, Defendants. ORDER Before the United States Court is Defendants' Magistrate Judge's Partial Objection to Order (doc. granted in part Plaintiff's motions to compel. no. 109), the which For the reasons stated below, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN PART the Partial Objection (doc. no. 113). document requests at issue. Magistrate Judge's rulings. A. GRIEVANCES; The Defendants' objections, and the produce any Familiarity is presumed. DOCUMENT REQUEST NUMBERS 1 AND 13 Magistrate additional The Court need not rehash the documents Judge ordered "related to Defendants the filing to of grievances mentioning or relating to Plaintiff's respiratory health, assisted Dockets.Justia.com living profile, CPAP container breathing treatments . . . or machine, and (Doc. No. 109, at 6.) prescribed In their objection. Defendants assure the Court they have produced all responsive documents known to exist and argue it would be unduly burdensome to conduct an exhaustive search of eveiy potential location of additional documents, such as an electronic search of all employee email accounts Corrections (^^GDOC"). within the Georgia Department of (Doc. No. 113, at 5-6.) Given the nature of this case, it would undoubtedly be unduly burdensome for the GDOC to conduct a search of its entire email database. At the same time, however, parties are required in this electronic age to conduct reasonable and proportional searches for electronic discovery. If not already completed. Defendants need only make a simple inquiry of Defendants and grievance coordinators at Johnson State Prison to ensure such custodians have no emails or other grievances. electronic information concerning the relevant Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART Defendants' objection to the extent the Magistrate Judge's ruling could be construed to require any additional efforts.^ ^ Defendants represent that they have "provided Plaintiff with copies of his grievance history as well as his grievances" during the relevant time period. (Doc. No. 113, at 5.) With this representation, produced requests believes not been the Court is satisfied that Defendants have all relevant hard copies responsive to Plaintiff's concerning grievances. To the extent that Plaintiff there are hard copies related to his grievances that have produced, he must request the documents of Defendants B. INSTITUTIONAL FILE: REQUEST NUMBER 5 The Magistrate Judge ordered the production of "any documents or notes relating to Plaintiff's respiratory health, assisted living profile, CPAP container or machine, and prescribed breathing treatment" in Plaintiff's institutional file. 109, at 9.) (Doc. No. Defendants request narrowing the scope further to any such documents "in Plaintiff's institutional file between October 28, 2015, and August 15, 2016 (the date Plaintiff filed his Complaint)." (Doc. No. 113, at 6-7.) Certainly, the production should be limited to only those responsive documents found within Plaintiff's institutional file, since the request propounded by Plaintiff is so limited. original document However, the time proffered by Defendants is too narrow. Relevant to Plaintiff's claims is his medical condition within a reasonable period of time before and after the alleged occurrences. Defendants argue it is unreasonable to require production of Plaintiff's institutional file for a longer time period because Plaintiff has been incarcerated different GDOC facilities over the past eleven years. Just three pages inmate's entire later, however. institutional file transferred to another facility. Defendants travels at several (Id. at 6.) explain that with him or her (Id. at 9.) an when In any event, the with must greater specificity as to the type of document and/or location of the document. relevance of documents related to the medical condition at issue in this case outweigh the burden upon Defendants in gathering and reviewing Plaintiff's Accordingly, institutional Defendants shall file produce for all such documents. documents within Plaintiff's institutional file concerning the relevant medical conditions. C. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES this objection. ASTHMA ATTACK DOCUMENTS: DOCUMENT REQUEST NUMBER 8 The Court granted Plaintiff's request as originally stated and ordered production of any documents concerning Plaintiff's asthma attacks during the period of April 2014 to June 2016. No. 109, at 11.) already produced In their objection. Defendants explain they all responsive documents known to exist production of Plaintiff's grievances and medical records. No. 113, at 8.) (Doc. by (Doc. Defendants point out it would be unduly burdensome to conduct an exhaustive search of every potential location of additional documents, such as an electronic search of all employee email accounts within the GDOC. (Id.) As previously explained in connection with document request numbers one and thirteen (regarding grievances), the Court is satisfied that the production of grievance and medical records covers all hard copies of documents relevant to his request unless or until Plaintiff can provide greater specificity as to the type of hard-copy documents or the location of such documents that would also be responsive. Nevertheless, the Court will require a simple inquiry made of Defendants to ensure they have no emails or other electronic information concerning Plaintiff's asthma attacks. Such an inquiry should also be made to the medical unit at JSP. Accordingly, the Court only SUSTAINS IN PART Defendants' objection. D. AIR QUALITY: Plaintiff REQUEST NUMBER 9 sought all documents concerning the smell of tobacco and marijuana written by correctional officers in the dorm logs between April 2014 and June 2016. The Magistrate Judge ordered Defendants to produce all documents concerning "inmate complaints of poor air quality because of tobacco or marijuana smoke after Plaintiff's removal from assisted living" on October 28, 2015. (Doc. No. 109, at 12.) Defendants contend they have no means to conduct electronic word searches for responsive documents. require "a detailed and individual Instead, compliance would search of all hard and electronically stored grievances and institutional files of all inmates," and "gathering and production of thousands of pages of dorm logs." (Doc. No. 113, at 10.) Defendants need not review every line of every institutional file and log book to find every mention of complaints regarding air quality. At the same time, however. Defendants cannot shirk their discovery obligations by merely pointing to worst case scenarios. The Court hereby SUSTAINS IN PART the objection and relieves Defendants from the extraordinary efforts they identify. Instead, Defendants shall make a reasonable inquiry of supervising officers at Johnson State Prison to determine whether there is any recollection of documented complaints concerning poor air quality due to marijuana and tobacco smoke between October 28, 2015, and Plaintiff's transfer to Calhoun State Prison lodged by Plaintiff or other inmates housed in the same unit as Plaintiff. extent there is To the recollection of such complaints, sufficiently detailed to offer reasonable assistance in finding documentation. Defendants shall conduct a reasonable responsive documents identified. search and produce any In addition. Defendants shall inquire whether these supervising officers possess any electronic information such as e-mails that concern any such complaints. E. EMPLOYEE FILES: REQUEST NUMBER 12 Plaintiff sought all employee personnel files for all named Defendants. documents The Magistrate Judge narrowed the request to only within Defendants' personnel Plaintiff's specific allegations of wrongdoing. 13 ("only as to documents relating allegations against Defendants").) to files concerning (Doc. No. 109, at [Plaintiff's] specific Defendants construe the order as requiring a broader scope of production (doc. no. 113, at 11); it does not. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES this objection. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN PART Defendants' Partial Objection (doc. no. 113) to the Magistrate Judge's Order of September 11, 2018. ORDERED that Defendants shall supplement their IT IS production by November 2, 2018, with any additional documents responsive to Plaintiff's Requests Numbers 1, 5, 8, 9, 12 & 13 in accordance with this Order. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this day of October, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
