The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JANE DOE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 18-3191
)
RICHARD MACLEOD, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Doe’s Motion to
Compel Inspection of Logan Correctional Center (d/e 117) (Motion). For the
reasons set forth below Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Doe alleges that she was incarcerated in the Logan
Correctional Center (Logan) in Logan County, Illinois from March 2015 to
August 2017. Defendant Richard MacLeod was a counselor at Logan.
Doe alleges that in 2016 and 2017 MacLeod repeatedly sexually assaulted
her while she was housed at Logan. She claims that when she reported
the sexual assaults, she was transferred to Decatur Correctional Center in
retaliation for making the report. See Amended Complaint (d/e 37), ¶¶ 11-
12, 16-42. The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) operated Logan.
Doe alleges that Defendants Christine Brannon, Kess Roberson,
Angela Locke, and Margaret Burke were Wardens or Acting Wardens of
Logan. Defendant Todd Sexton was a member of Logan’s Internal Affairs
Department. Defendants Mike Atchison, Mike Funk, Patrick
Keane, Felipe Zavala, and Alan Pasley were administrators within IDOC
and were responsible for developing, implementing, and overseeing
implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") at all IDOC
facilities, including Logan; for ensuring that administrators and staff at
Logan and other IDOC facilities took steps to address the problem of
custodial sexual assault; and for ensuring the reasonable safety of women
in IDOC custody. Defendants Clara Charron, Shari Klassen,
Jennifer Meaker, Heidi Browne, Lisa Johnson, Debra Pollock, and Melinda
Eddy held the position of PREA compliance manager and/or backup PREA
compliance manager for Logan. Defendants Dr. Keena Peek, Grant Willis,
Dr. Jennifer McClellan, Charles Gibbons, Bobbie LeDuc, and Brent Blanco
were members of the PREA incident review team at Logan. Amended
Complaint, ¶¶ 4-9.
The Amended Complaint alleges:
45. Likewise, in the manner described more fully above,
defendants Todd Sexton, Margaret Burke, Mike Atchison,
Angela Locke, Kess Roberson, Christine Brannon, Patrick
Keane, Felipe Zavala, Michael Funk, Alan Pasley, Clara
Charron, Shari Klassen, Jennifer Meaker, Marcia Mibbs, Heidi
Browne, Lisa Johnson, Debra Pollock, Melinda Eddy, Dr.
Keena Peek, Grant Willis, Dr. Jennifer McClellan, Charles
Gibbons, Bobbie LeDuc, Brent Blanco, and other as-yet-
unidentified defendants, violated Ms. Doe's right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment because they knew that plaintiff's
rights were being violated, had the realistic opportunity to
intervene to prevent or stop the misconduct from occurring, and
failed to do so. In the alternative, these defendants were on
notice of a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff and they
consciously disregarded that risk.
. . . .
51. Defendants Margaret Burke, Mike Atchison, Angela
Locke, Kess Roberson, Christine Brannon, Patrick Keane,
Felipe Zavala, Michael Funk, Alan Pasley, Clara Charron, Shari
Klassen, Jennifer Meaker, Marcia Mibbs, Heidi Browne, Lisa
Johnson, Debra Pollock, Melinda Eddy, Dr. Keena Peek, Grant
Willis, Dr. Jennifer McClellan, Charles Gibbons, Bobbie LeDuc,
Brent Blanco were on notice of numerous instances of sexual
misconduct by staff directed at Logan inmates, were aware that
a systemic sexual assault problem existed at Logan, and were
further aware of the custom, policies, and practices at Logan
that permitted this type of misconduct to flourish. Further, each
of these defendants had both the duty and power to take steps
to change these policies and procedures in a manner which
would have reduced the danger that Plaintiff and other Logan
inmates would be subjected to sexual misconduct at the hands
of Logan staff. These Defendants had knowledge of the
problem by way of, among other things, PREA Compliance
Reports, John Howard Association Investigations and Reports,
grievances, training, reports from counselors, meetings, and
lawsuits.
. . . .
52. Defendants Margaret Burke, Mike Atchison, Angela
Locke, Kess Roberson, Christine Brannon, Patrick Keane,
Felipe Zavala, Michael Funk, Alan Pasley, Clara Charron, Shari
Klassen, Jennifer Meaker, Marcia Mibbs, Heidi Browne, Lisa
Johnson, Debra Pollock, Melinda Eddy, Dr. Keena Peek, Grant
Willis, Dr. Jennifer McClellan, Charles Gibbons, Bobbie LeDuc,
Brent Blanco knew that the existence of this problem posed a
substantial risk of harm to women prisoners like Plaintiff, yet
they failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of harm-
including those steps available to them pursuant to their
supervisory positions and/or positions under the PREA statute-
thereby exhibiting deliberate indifference. Among other things,
these Defendants failed to adequately investigate, supervise,
control, and discipline IDOC employees who engaged in, or
were accused of engaging in, staff-on-inmate assaults, thus
directly encouraging and facilitating future abuses such as
those affecting Plaintiff. Such actions could have included (by
way of example only): providing training to all staff at Logan
Correctional Center on the unique challenges and requirements
presented in dealing with women prisoners rather than the men
prisoners who had previously been housed at Logan; providing
a more rigorous and independent protocol for investigating
allegations of sexual misconduct by staff; enforcing the zero
tolerance rule which existed on paper (but was in fact not
enforced) barring all sexual harassment and other misconduct
by staff directed at prisoners, including zero tolerance of
failures to report such misconduct; and on the job situational
training and feedback by supervisors whenever they witnessed
an instance of sexual misconduct or harassment by those they
supervised.
. . . .
54. The misconduct described in this count was objectively
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally, with malice
and knowing disregard for plaintiff’s clearly established
constitutional rights, and not for any legitimate penological
purpose.
Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 45, 51, 52, 54. Doe alleges claims against the
Defendants for violation of her Eighth Amendment rights to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment. Amended Complaint, Count I. She alleges
a claim against Burke and Sexton for retaliating against her in violation of
her First Amendment rights. Amended Complaint, Count II.
On December 6, 2019, Plaintiff Doe served a Rule 45 subpoena on
IDOC seeking, among other things, inspection of the areas at Logan that
were subject to Illinois State Police investigations of custodial sexual
misconduct. Doe sought to inspect areas where Doe alleges McLeod
committed sexual assaults on her. Doe also sought to inspect areas where
other staff on inmate sexual assaults allegedly occurred that have been the
subject of Illinois State Police investigations (Other Assaults). Specifically,
Doe sought to inspect Housing Unit 9, Housing Unit 11, the staff restroom,
the Maintenance Building, the Laundry Room, the Electrician Shop, and the
restroom outside of the Electrician Shop (Disputed Inspection). Motion, at
1.
IDOC objected to inspection of areas unrelated to McLeod’s alleged
sexual assaults on Doe as irrelevant and unduly burdensome (Disputed
Inspection). IDOC allowed Doe’s counsel to inspect the areas related to
her claims, which inspection has been completed, but did not allow the
Disputed Inspection. The parties and IDOC could not resolve IDOC’s
objection to the Disputed Inspection. Doe, therefore, filed this Motion.
ANALYSIS
Preliminarily, the IDOC argues that the Motion is untimely. The
Scheduling Order requires motions to compel to be filed within 60 days of
the event that is the subject of the motion. Scheduling Order (d/e 21), at 2.
IDOC served its objections on December 23, 2019. Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Inspection (d/e 121) (Response), at 2. Doe’s counsel
received the objections on January 6, 2020. Motion, at 1. Doe filed the
Motion on March 6, 2020. The Court has broad discretion to manage
discovery and to control its docket. The Court in its discretion will not deny
the Motion as untimely under these circumstances. Doe showed diligence
and the Court determines that a decision on the merits is appropriate in this
circumstance of this case.
Doe’s subpoena may seek any non-privileged relevant information.
Information is relevant for discovery purposes if the information sought
appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence
and is proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In
considering whether to allow Doe to subpoena the Disputed Inspection, the
Court also considers whether the subpoena would impose an undue
burden. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). The Court may quash a
subpoena if it subjects IDOC to an undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(c)(3)(iii) & (iv). To determine whether a subpoena imposes an undue
burden, the Court should “weigh the burden to the subpoenaed party
against the value of the information to the serving party.” Amini Innovation
Corp., v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Ca.
2014); see Northwestern Memorial Hosp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 927
(7th Cir. 2004). The burden imposed on non-parties is entitled to “special
weight” in performing this calculus. Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d
708, 717 (1st Cir. 1998); Mosely v. City of Chicago, 252 F.R.D. 421, 434
(N.D. Ill. 2008). The Department must indemnify Defendants for payment
of damages for claims for actions or omissions occurring within
the scope of their employment. 5 ILCS 350/2. The Court, therefore, does
not give IDOC’s concerns special weight in resolving the Motion. See
Opinion entered May 16, 2019 (d/e 36), at 7.
In this case Doe wants to inspect locations related to the Other
Assaults. The Other Assaults are relevant for discovery purposes to Doe’s
claim that Defendants “were on notice of a substantial risk of harm to
plaintiff and they consciously disregarded that risk.” Complaint ¶ 45. The
Court previously granted motions to compel discovery of information
related to Other Assaults. See Opinion entered May 15, 2019 (d/e 36), at
8-10; Opinion entered June 25, 2019 (d/e 62), at 9; Opinion entered August
21, 2019, (d/e 88), at 5-8; Opinion entered September 26, 2019 (d/e 97), at
4-8. Documents that tended to show that the Defendants knew about the
allegations of the Other Assaults could reasonably be expected to lead to
relevant evidence regarding whether Burke and Sexton consciously
disregarded the risk to Doe and other inmates from such staff-on-inmate
assaults.
The Disputed Inspection, however, would be of marginal relevance,
at best, to the question of notice to Defendants. The Defendants are either
supervisory personnel or personnel involved in administering the PREA. In
those positions, Defendants would be likely to receive notice of the Other
Assaults from complaints, reports, emails, or other communications from
staff who had closer contact with either inmates or closer contact with staff
who had direct contact with inmates. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 51
(“These Defendants had knowledge of the problem by way of, among other
things, PREA Compliance Reports, John Howard Association
Investigations and Reports, grievances, training, reports from counselors,
meetings, and lawsuits.”). Thus, the Court compelled discovery of
requested documents related to these issues.
The Defendants, however, would have little personal connection to
the locations related to the Other Assaults. The Defendants would not
have been on duty in Housing Unit 9, Housing Unit 11, the staff restroom,
the Maintenance Building, the Laundry Room, the Electrician Shop, or the
restroom outside of the Electrician Shop at the relevant times when the
Other Assaults allegedly occurred. Inspection of these locations, therefore,
would seem to provide little additional information about the notice to the
Defendants or whether any of them consciously disregarded the risk to
Doe. Doe can also use other, less intrusive means to discover the
proximity of Defendants’ offices to these locations. Building plans, other
diagrams, aerial photographs, or other similar documents would provide
this information.
The Disputed Inspection, however, poses a significant burden on
IDOC and the Defendants in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The
IDOC faces significant challenges to protect the health and safety of staff
and inmates at Logan during the pandemic. The Court agrees that
requiring an inspection would place a significant burden on the IDOC and,
potentially, to accommodate the inspection and ensure that such an
inspection would not create additional risks of infection for staff and
inmates. Given the marginal relevance of the Disputed Inspection, the
burden on IDOC would be too great.
Doe states that she can wait to conduct the Disputed Inspections until
after the Administrative Quarantine at Logan has been lifted and Logan is
reopened to visitors. Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Compel
Inspection of Logan Correctional Center (d/e 123), at 2. Such a delay
would impose an unacceptable burden on the Defendants and an
unacceptable delay in the resolution of this case. Discovery ends on June
30, 2020. Text Order entered April 8, 2020. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker
has extended the stay at home order in Illinois to the end of May 2020.
Thereafter, suspended activities may start to resume in stages over time. It
seems clear to the Court that allowing visitors at Illinois prisons will be one
of the last activities to resume due to the complexities of limiting the risk of
infections in prisons. The Court, therefore, is convinced that allowing Doe
to wait for Logan to once again be open to visitors to perform the Disputed
Inspection will push the completion of discovery well past June 30, 2020.
As explained above, the Disputed Inspections are of marginal relevance at
best to the issue of notice to Defendants of the Other Assaults and that the
relevant information can be secured by other less intrusive means. Given
the limited relevance, the Court will not extend discovery and delay this
case further to wait for visiting hours at Logan to resume. The delay would
prejudice the Defendants’ right to a resolution of this matter. The delay
would also be contrary to the interests of justice to resolve this matter in a
timely manner. Given these factors, the Court denies the Motion.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Doe’s Motion to Compel
Inspection of Logan Correctional Center (d/e 117) is DENIED.
ENTER: April 28, 2020
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE