Opinion
Case No. 06 C 01392.
August 17, 2007
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, Plaintiff's Motion for a Rule to Show Cause, and the Individual Capacity Federal Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. These three Motions were presented on August 15, 2007. The following memorializes the court's disposition of these motions as stated in open court.
I. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the McHenry County Defendants
With regard to initial interrogatories 2 and 4, the McHenry County Defendants are ordered to conduct a reasonable investigation into the sources, context and content of its knowledge concerning Ms. Belbachir as requested in interrogatories two and four. The results of this inquiry must be disclosed to the Plaintiff by August 31, 2007.
As to subsequent interrogatory A, the McHenry County Defendants are ordered to provide the identification of ICE detainees as requested upon the completion of a 26(c) protective order. The McHenry County Defendants are also ordered to provide the information requested in subsequent interrogatory B, with the condition that Defendants are only to provide the number of female detainees placed in the medical pod between March 9th and March 17th, 2005, along with the reasons for their placement in the medical pod. The identification of female detainees placed in the medical pod is not to take place at this time. As to subsequent interrogatory C, Defendants are to conduct a reasonable investigation into the identity of the male detainee who worked with Defendant Ludvigsen at the time Ms. Belbachir's body was discovered. Compliance with the court's order as to subsequent interrogatories A, B, and C is to be carried out within a reasonable time after the completion of the 26(c) protective order.
Concerning Plaintiff's Requests to Produce 11 and 31, the court is in receipt of the Defendants' privilege log and board meeting minutes. The court will conduct an in camera inspection of these documents to determine whether the Defendants' assertion of privilege is sustainable. The court will issue a written opinion as to this material.
Regarding Request to Produce 33, Defendants are to conduct a reasonable investigation into the evaluations and analyses of the jail's functioning and the proposed changes to the jail. As to Request to Produce 37, Defendants are to provide the personnel files for all McHenry County defendants. Personal information such as social security numbers, drivers license numbers and medical information is to be redacted from these personnel files. Production of the material sought in Requests to Produce 33 and 37 is also to take place within a reasonable time after the entry of the 26(c) protective order.
II. Plaintiff's Motion for a Rule to Show Cause
Plaintiff's Motion for a Rule to show cause is rooted in the McHenry County defendants' failure to provide access to the jail, certain detainee grievances, and information concerning other lawsuits brought against the defendants.
As to accessing the jail, the defendants are to provide Plaintiff access by September 14, 2007. Defendants are to allow up to four of Plaintiff's representatives into the jail to take photographs, measure and otherwise inspect the interior of the premises. The parties are to review the photographs together to ensure that any photos which include inmates, employees, or security-sensitive areas are destroyed. This is to be accomplished by the use of a digital camera, if possible, so as to provide the parties with the ability to screen the photos the same day the jail is visited. If Plaintiff intends to use a conventional camera, the parties must agree ahead of time as to the protocol used to ensure that no improper photographs are retained.
Regarding the production of grievances filed within the past two years concerning medical care and the production of other lawsuits filed against the Defendants within the past five years, the Defendants are granted until August 31, 2007, to produce this material.
Insofar as the Motion for a Rule to Show Cause seeks fees and an order finding the McHenry County Defendants in contempt of court for failing to abide by this court's previous discovery orders, the motion is taken under advisement. The court will revisit these issues as the discovery process moves forward.
III. The Individual Capacity Federal Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration
IV. Conclusion