# Murray v. LeBlanc

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · February 15, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192533

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** February 15, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192533

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JAMES MURRAY, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-592-JWD-RLB

JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from
Madison Parish Sheriff Sammie Byrd and the LaSalle Defendants. (R. Doc. 68). The motion is
opposed. (R. Doc. 78). Plaintiffs filed a Reply. (R. Doc. 50).
I. Background
Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 15, 2021. (R. Doc. 1). The operative
pleading in this action is the Third Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 64), which was filed in
accordance with the district judge’s ruling dismissing without prejudice all claims raised against
Secretary James LeBlanc (“LeBlanc”). (R. Doc. 59). Plaintiffs represent that the Third Amended
Complaint does not make “any material change” to any of the allegations involving Sheriff Byrd
and the LaSalle Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”).1
A. Allegations in the Third Amended Complaint
A brief summary of the allegations in this action is warranted.2 Plaintiffs in this case were
all confined at Madison Parish Correctional Center (“MPCC”), which houses both sentenced and
pre-trial prisoners from around the State of Louisiana. (R. Doc. 64 at 1; see R. Doc. 64 at 21-35).

1 Plaintiffs identify the “LaSalle Defendants” as Arthur Anderson, Chris Stinson, Tommy Farmer, Steven Chase,
Cantrell Guice, John Murray, Wendell Hughes, Edward McDowell, Jonathan Knox, Jonta Shepherd, Esco Tillman,
and Robert Thornton.
2 In dismissing all claims against Leblanc, the district judge provides a detailed summary of the allegations raised in
the Second Amended Complaint. (See R. Doc. 59 at 1-10).
Plaintiffs allege that the following defendants are responsible for ensuring the safety of the
individuals held at MPCC: (1) Lasalle Management, LLC (“Lasalle”) (the privately-owned
operator of MPCC); (2) LeBlanc (Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, or “DSPC”); and (3) Sheriff Byrd (the Sheriff of Madison Parish). (R. Doc. 64 at 1-
2). Plaintiffs allege that they were pre-trial detainees while confined and attacked at MPCC and,

after the attacks, were placed in “punitive lockdown conditions” where they were deprived of
exercise and natural light. (R. Doc. 64 at 1; see R. Doc. 64 at 21-37).
Plaintiffs allege that the foregoing defendants “have allowed fatally dangerous conditions
of confinement to flourish at MPCC,” with each “aware that MPCC has no functional
classification, investigation, or staff supervision in place” and each “aware that these conditions
allow threat of serious injury from rampant violence to go unchecked.” (R. Doc. 64 at 2).
Plaintiffs maintain that, because of these conditions, they were stabbed and beaten by attackers
who should not have been confined with them on the same unit. (R. Doc. 64 at 2).
Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants knew of the levels of extreme

violence at the facility, the lack of a classification plan, the lack of investigation and response to
known drivers of violence, and the chronic understaffing, but nevertheless continued to operate
the facility with minimal adjustments, including continuing to house sentenced DPSC prisoners
in the facility, allowing an intolerable risk of harm to come to those held in Defendants’ custody,
including Plaintiffs.” (R. Doc. 64 at 39). Plaintiffs further allege that “Defendants knew of the
failure of individuals at MPCC to perform crucial duties, including failures to develop and
implement a classification plan, failures to respond appropriately to imminent risks of harm by
correctional officers under their supervision, and failures to investigate incidents of harm.” (R.
Doc. 64 at 39). Plaintiffs further allege that “Defendants failed to train, supervise, or discipline
individuals who engaged in these behaviors[, which] was a moving force behind the harm
experienced by Plaintiffs.” (R. Doc. 64 at 41).
Plaintiffs seek recovery for violation of their rights under the Fourteenth and Eight
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, for violation of their rights under the Louisiana
Constitution’s rights to due process and to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, and under

the state law torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. (R. Doc. 64 at
37-44). Plaintiffs bring a separate state law claim seeking recovery from the defendants’ insurer,
Old Republic Union Insurance Company. (R. Doc. 64 at 44-45). Plaintiffs pray for declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, judgment against the defendants for the asserted causes of action,
attorney’s fees, and compensatory and punitive damages. (R. Doc. 64 at 41).
B. The Instant Discovery Dispute
On August 26, 2022, Plaintiffs served 63 requests for production on Defendants. (R. Doc.
68-2). Plaintiffs agreed to extensions of the deadline to respond to these requests for production
on the condition of rolling productions. (R. Docs. 68-3, 68-4). Plaintiffs represent that

Defendants “have made three limited batches of discovery production” but those productions
remain incomplete. (R. Doc. 68 at 2).
On October 28, 2022, and November 4, 2022, Defendants provided their “Preliminary &
Partial Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents.” (R. Doc. 68-5; R.
Doc. 68-6). There is no dispute that this written response was timely given the parties’ stipulated
extensions made pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs represent that on November 7, 2022, counsel for the parties conferred in good
faith regarding the outstanding discovery responses pursuant to Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, but no subsequent productions, information, or privilege logs were
provided prior to filing the instant motion on November 22, 2022. (R. Doc. 68 at 2-3; R. Doc.
68-1 at 16). Plaintiffs now seek supplemental responses and productions with respect to
Defendants’ staffing and organizational structure (Requests for Production Nos. 1, 7, 8, 14, 15,
16, 17, 20, 27); employee management and discipline records (Request for Production No. 21,
23, 47.g); contracts for service (Request for Production No. 24); billing and hospitalization

records (Request for Production Nos. 25, 26); training records (Request for Production Nos. 31,
32, 33); investigation, classification, and critical incident responses (Request for Production Nos.
34, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53); disciplinary practices (Requests for Production Nos. 47, 48,
49); personnel files of named defendants (Request for Production No. 63); information regarding
other prisoners (Request for Production Nos. 36, 57, 61); and information related to other
LaSalle facilities (Request for Production Nos. 5-10, 19, 29, 60).
Since the filing of this motion, the Court has extended the non-expert discovery deadline
from February 1, 2023 to June 2, 2023. (R. Doc. 84). The Court has also issued a Stipulated
Protective Order for the Privacy of Protected Health Information. (R. Doc. 86).

II. Law and Analysis
A. Legal Standards
“Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). The court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that: “(i) the
discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii)
the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2)(C).
“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement indicates that the party seeking a protective order has the
burden “to show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and specific
demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra
Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323,
1326 n.3 (5th Cir. 1978)).
A party must respond or object to a request for production within 30 days after service of

the discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). This default date may be modified by stipulation
between the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). If a party fails to respond fully to discovery requests
made pursuant to Rule 34 in the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party
seeking discovery may move to compel responses and for appropriate sanctions under Rule 37.
An “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to
disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
B. Defendants’ Continued Search for Responsive Documents and
Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”)

Defendants agree that final responses are merited with respect to requests for productions
to which Defendants initially responded that a diligent search for documents and information
was being made (i.e., Request for Production Nos. 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 27, 33, 47, 48,
49, 63). (R. Doc. 78 at 1-2). Defendants acknowledge that they have a duty to provide responsive
documents and information with respect to these requests for production, noting that they “have
produced more than 5,300 pages of documents in discovery and fully intend to provide other
responsive documents that may be located” within the limits of their stated objections. (R. Doc.

78 at 2). Defendants assert, however, that the search for documents and information has been
difficult given the change of management, personnel, and storage facilities. (R. Doc. 78 at 2).
Given the recent extension of the deadline to complete non-expert discovery, as well as
the apparent difficulties in identifying and locating responsive documents and information, the
Court will provide the Defendants with a date certain to complete their search for, and
production of, responsive documents and information and any required privilege log.
Much of the information and communications sought by Plaintiffs will consist of
electronically stored information (“ESI”). The only discussions regarding ESI in the parties’
briefing, however, appears in Defendants’ discussion of Request for Production No. 46, with

Defendants suggesting that the “onus” to provide search terms should be placed on Plaintiffs,
who appear to have “set traps for Defendants with vague terms.” (R. Doc. 78 at 7-8).
The parties had a duty to discuss “any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation
of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced”
in the development of their discovery plan. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(C). To the extent the
parties did not develop a comprehensive plan regarding how ESI would be handled in discovery,
that does not excuse Defendants from failing to conduct a diligent search for responsive
documents and ESI.
A party resisting discovery of ESI based on undue burden must make a specific showing
that “the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(2)(B). The responding party cannot simply refuse to search for ESI because the party
conducting discovery has not provided search terms:
A producing party generally has an obligation to collect and review ESI pursuant
to its own search protocol . . . and to provide the requesting party with the names
of custodians whose ESI was searched, date ranges for the searches, and any
search terms applied. Such information is properly included in written responses
to document requests pursuant to Rule 34’s specificity requirements. . . . A
producing party is usually in the best position to know where to find relevant
documents. . . . If problems are found with the search, a requesting party can raise
them afterwards.

Brown v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 3d 637, 646 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); see also The
Sedona Conference, The Sedona Principles, Third Edition, 19 Sedona Conf. J. 1, 52 (2018)
(“Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and
technologies appropriate for . . . producing their own electronically stored information.”); AIDS
Healthcare Found., Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge, No, 17-229, 2018 WL 5259465, at *5 n.4 (M.D.
La. Oct. 22, 2018) (“District courts within the Fifth Circuit have acknowledged that the Sedona
Principles and related Sedona commentaries are the leading authorities on electronic document
retrieval and production.” (citation and internal quotation marks removed); Firefighters’ Ret. Sys.
v. Citco Grp. Ltd., No. 13-373, ,2018 WL 276941, at *4 (M.D. La. Jan. 3, 2018) (“A responding
party is generally entitled to select the custodians most likely to possess responsive
information.”); Scott v. Mobilelink Louisiana, LLC, No. 20-826, 2022 WL 3009111, at *5 n.2
(M.D. La. July 28, 2022) (“To be clear, the lack of an ESI protocol does not wholly negate
Defendant’s obligation to respond to a valid discovery request, even if electronically stored
information might be responsive.”).
Given the foregoing, and the apparent lack of any ESI protocol agreed upon by the parties
notwithstanding their Rule 26(f) and Rule 37(a)(1) conferences, the Court will require
Defendants to conduct searches for both responsive documents and ESI without further input
from Plaintiffs.3 At the time of production, Defendants must certify that they have conducted a
diligent search and identify the efforts made to locate responsive documents and ESI, including

custodians whose ESI was searched, date ranges for the searches, and any search terms applied.
That said, Defendants need only search for and produce documents and ESI within the
parameters set by the remainder of this Order.
C. Temporal Scope Limitations

Defendants have objected to various requests for production based on their temporal
scope. In their opposition, Defendants argue that because none of the Plaintiffs was confined in
MPCC prior to June 19, 2020, all documents subject to production should be limited to that date
and, at most, a reasonable period before that date not to exceed two years. (R. Doc. 78 at 2-3).
Defendants further argue that any documents or events after the Plaintiffs left MPCC have no
relevance to this action. (R. Doc. 78 at 3).
It appears that the Plaintiffs were housed at MPCC between June 19, 2020 and sometime
in early 2021. (See R. Doc. 64 at 21, 33). Plaintiffs suggest that Defendants agreed to produce
documents from 2019 and 2020 (at least with respect to employee management / discipline
records), with Plaintiff reserving the right to seek additional information at a later point. (R. Doc.
68-1 at 7).
Unless otherwise stated in this Order or further limited by the specific document request
at issue, the Court will limit the temporal scope of responsive information to the times period of

3 Nothing in this Order shall preclude the parties from conferring further with respect to strategies for locating and
producing responsive documents and ESI.
January 1, 2019 through June 1, 2021. This general limitation of the temporal scope is consistent
with many of Plaintiffs’ document requests, and strikes the proper balance in light of the claims
and defenses in this action.
D. Information Regarding Other Prisoners (Request for Production Nos.
36, 57, 61)

Request for Production Nos. 36 and 61 collectively seek the inmate and related records
for 15 other inmates who were or are confined at MPCC. (See R. Doc. 68-2 at 17-18, 22).
Plaintiffs assert that the requested information is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’
“failure to investigate incidents, lack of disciplinary process, and lack of classification system
created a substantial risk of harm by allowing violence to flourish at MPCC unchecked.” (R.
Doc. 68-1 at 13).
Request for Production No. 57 seeks the production of hospital “trip sheets” between July
1, 2019 and June 1, 2021. (R. Doc. 68-2 at 21). Plaintiffs assert that this information is relevant
because it would document injuries that evidence “the level of harm caused by the dangerous
levels of violence at MPCC.” (R. Doc. 68-1 at 13).
Defendants raised various objections to these requests for production based on the scope
of discovery, the vagueness of the requests, and the protected privacy interests of third-party
inmates. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 18, 27, 29-30).
To the extent Defendants raised concerns regarding the exchange of protected health
information involving other prisoners, those issues are now moot given the entry of the

Stipulated Protective Order for the Privacy of Protected Health Information. (See R. Doc. 86).
Any protected health information produced in this action shall be governed by the terms of that
Stipulated Protective Order.
The remainder of Defendants’ arguments raised in their opposition appear to be based on
the lack of inclusion of these third-party inmates in the pleadings and the possibility that their
records contain information not relevant to the time period at issue. (R. Doc. 78 at 4). Plaintiffs
represent in support of their motion that inmates specifically named in Request for Production
Nos. 36 and 61, although not named in the pleadings, “were on units with Plaintiffs and involved

in the incidents alleged in the complaint.” (R. Doc. 68-1 at 13). To the extent that assertion is
contradicted by Defendants’ records, that may be addressed by separate motion practice or by
withholding that information and providing an explanation for why the information for a
particular inmate is irrelevant. Otherwise, Defendants must produce the information sought for
the time period of July 1, 2019 through June 1, 2021. This information falls within the scope of
discovery for the reasons presented by Plaintiffs.
E. Information Regarding Other LaSalle Facilities (Request for
Production Nos. 5-10, 19, 29, 60)

To the extent these requests for production, or any other requests for production, seek
information related to LaSalle facilities other than MPCC, the Court concludes that while the
information may have some attenuated relevance to the allegations in this action, the requests are
not within the scope of discovery given that the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of this case. Plaintiffs’ complaint concerns the alleged acts and omissions of Defendants at
a single facility – MPCC. To be clear, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Defendants failed to
understaff or respond to incidents at facilities other than MPCC. Defendants have no duty to
respond to the extent any discovery seeks information regarding facilities owned or operated by
LaSalle other than the facility at issue in this action.
It is unclear whether there are any remaining disputes with respect to these requests for
production to the extent they seek information regarding MPCC. Any further production of
documents regarding MPCC responsive to these requests may be limited to the time period of
January 1, 2019 through June 1, 2021. The parties must meet-and-confer with respect to any
remaining disputes regarding these requests for production, as they apply specifically to MPCC,
prior to the filing of any additional discovery motion pertaining to these discovery requests.
F. Staffing and Organizational Structure (Requests for Production Nos. 1, 7, 8,
14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 27)

Defendants indicate in their opposition that they do not object to the production of non-
privileged documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, and 27 within
certain limitations discussed in the opposition. (R. Doc. 78 at 2, 5-6). Accordingly, by the
deadline set by this Order, Defendants must produce all non-privileged documents responsive to
these requests – or certify that no documents could be located notwithstanding a diligent search.
As discussed above, the temporal scope of these requests is limited to January 1, 2019 through
June 1, 2021 (unless the specific document request at issue provides a more limited time frame),
and only information regarding MPCC must be produced.
Furthermore, with respect to Request for Production No. 7, Defendants must specifically
include in their search specific records or logs that reflect “24-hour monitoring and coordinating”
of the MPCC’s “security, life safety and communication systems” from July 1, 2019 to June 1,
2021. (See R. Doc. 68-2 at 10). Defendants directed Plaintiffs to “Monthly Activity Reports
provided to DPSC,” but those documents do not appear to be fully responsive as they do not
contain information reflecting 24-hour monitoring by staff. (R. Doc. 68-5 at 6; see R. Doc. 68-7).

To the extent Defendants cannot locate, after a diligent search, responsive documents reflecting
24-hour monitoring, they may inform Plaintiffs that no documents were located.
Request for Production No. 1 seeks the production of “master staffing plans, including
any and all documents or other records showing approved staffing” for MPCC “from July 1,
2019 through June 1, 2021.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 9). Defendants raised objections based on
relevance and vagueness, noting that the request fails to define “master staffing plans.” (R. Doc.
68-6 at 2). Defendants have clarified in their opposition that they “endeavor to provide
documentation related to staffing at the facility, though such documentation is unlikely to contain
anything titled ‘master staffing plan.’” (R. Doc. 78 at 5). In accordance with this representation,

the Court will require Defendants to produce all non-privileged documents response to Request
for Production No. 1 (whether titled “master staffing plan” or not) after completing a diligent
search.
The sole remaining dispute in this category pertains to Request for Production Nos. 16
and 20. These document requests seek, respectively, “documents reflecting the number of
positions filled and the number of positions vacant for uniformed corrections officer positions” at
MPCC “from February 1, 2020 through June 1, 2021,” and “documents or other records
reflecting the amount of overtime paid to uniformed staff for overtime worked . . by pay period,
by month, and by quarter” at MPCC “from January 1, 2020 through June 1, 2021.” (R. Doc. 68-2

at 11-12). In relevant part, Defendants objected to the requests as “overly burdensome” given
that responses “would require the manual review” of all personal and payroll files to identify the
information sought. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 6-7). Plaintiffs argue that the information sought should be
contained “in a centralized administrative file” or similar summary documentation. (R. Doc. 68-1
at 5-6). Defendants respond that to the extent the information is not located in centralized files
they would maintain their burdensomeness objection given that individualized reviews would be
necessary. (R. Doc. 78 at 5-6).
While the documents and information sought in these document requests are relevant to
Plaintiffs’ claims, it remains unclear whether the discovery is proportional to the needs of this
case. Given the extension of the deadline to conduct a diligent search for responsive documents,
the Court need not fully resolve this issue based on the motion now before it. The record
indicates that Defendants are unsure whether responsive documentation could be found in a
single located repository. On the other hand, Defendants do not describe with any particularly the
burden imposed by prospective “individualized reviews” of employee files. To the extent

Defendants maintain their objection of undue burden after a diligent search for responsive
documents is conducted, they must provide Plaintiffs with an approximation of the time and
costs that would be incurred to locate and produce the responsive documents. Furthermore, to the
extent the production of employee files raises confidentiality concerns, the parties may address
such issues through the entry of a protective order governing the exchange of confidential
information.
G. Employee Management and Discipline (Requests for Production Nos. 21, 23,
47.g.)

Defendants indicate in their opposition that they do not object to the production of non-
privileged documents responsive to Request for Production No. 21. (R. Doc. 78 at 2, 6). By the
deadline set by this Order, Defendants must produce all non-privileged documents responsive to
this request – or certify that no documents could be located notwithstanding a diligent search. As
discussed above, the temporal scope of these requests is limited July 1, 2019 through June 1,
2021 as specified in the document request.
Request for Production No. 23 seeks production of “documents or other records
reflecting criminal prosecution of any LaSalle Management staff . . . employed at any facility
from January 1, 2014 to the present.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 13). Defendants objected based on
irrelevance, disproportionality, and overbreadth: “the Request is overbroad both temporally, as it
seeks information from dates both before and after the Plaintiffs’ interactions with the facility at
issue, and in subject matter as it seeks information with no restrictions on relevance or
consideration as to the relevance of information over the entirety of the span of time covered, the
relevance of information from facilities in which the Plaintiffs were never held, and does not
limit itself in any way to criminal prosecution related to the allegations of the underlying
Complaint.” (R. Doc. 68-6 at 9). Defendants maintain these objections in their opposition. (R.

Doc. 78 at 6).
Given that this discovery request seeks information reflecting criminal prosecutions,
which are subject to investigations and statutes of limitations, the Court will require Defendants
to conduct a diligent search for responsive information with respect to Request for Production
No. 23 from January 1, 2019 to the present. The Court will also limit the scope of the criminal
prosecutions to LaSalle personal at MPCC, but will require production of records pertaining to
criminal prosecutions regardless of whether they concern the underlying incidents.
Request for Production No. 47 seeks production of “documents pertaining to all
incidents, uses of force, disciplinary actions and altercations involving plaintiffs,” with Request

for Production 47(g) specifically seeking “ any disciplinary action taken against any corrections
officer related to the incident.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 19). Defendants objected to the request on as
outside of the scope of discovery, overly broad, and vague. (R. Doc. 68-8 at 23). Defendants now
argue that the request is too broad because it is not limited to “incidents” that have any bearing to
Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. (R. Doc. 78 at 6). Plaintiff states, however, that at the Rule 37
conference, Plaintiffs clarified that “the request was for documents pertaining to any incident any
of the three Plaintiffs experienced while at MPCC.” (R. Doc. 68-1 at 11). The Court similarly
interprets Request for Production 47 (in its entirety) as seeking information related to incidents
involving the three Plaintiffs in this action. Defendants shall locate and produce these documents
as requested, and as further discussed below.
H. Contracts (Request for Production No. 24)

Request for Production No. 24 seeks the production of “all contracts with third parties
related to operations at [MPCC] in effect from January 1, 2014 to present,” including contracts
between the Madison Parish Sheriff’s Office and the third-party Security Management. (R. Doc.
68-2 at 13). Defendants objected based on relevance and disproportionality, specifically
objecting to the production of documents involving the third-party Security Management based
on temporal overbreadth and its non-party status. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 10). In opposing the motion,
Defendant again focuses on the temporal aspect of the request, Security Management’s non-party
status, and the lack of any allegations in the pleadings concerning Security Management. (R.
Doc. 78 at 7).
The Court will limit the temporal scope of the instant request to contracts related to
operations at MPCC in effect from January 1, 2019 through June 1, 2021. Defendants must make

a diligent search for all responsive contracts in their possession, custody, or control during this
time period. Any contract with Security Management entered into during this period by Sheriff
Byrd falls within the scope of discovery.4 To the extent the production of the third-party contract
raises confidentiality concerns, the parties may address such issues through the entry of a
protective order governing the exchange of confidential information.
I. Billing and Hospitalization Records (Request for Production Nos. 25, 26)

4 Plaintiffs allege that “[a]s of May 31, 2021, Security Management has taken over operations at MPCC pursuant to
a contract” with Sheriff Byrd. (R. Doc. 64 at 11 n.1).
Request for Production No. 25 seeks the production of “all policies and procedures
regarding outside hospital billing for services to [MPCC] and LaSalle Management from July 1,
2019 to June 1, 2021.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 13). Request for Production No. 26 seeks the production
of “all bills for medical service provided to James Murry, Latavius Paschal, and Antone
Henderson sent by an outside hospital or medical provider while in custody of DPCS and/or

LaSalle Management.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 14). Defendant agreed to provide responsive documents
after conducting a diligent search. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 10).
In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants raise no arguments regarding these requests
for production. Accordingly, the Court will require Defendants to respond to the requests as
stated within the deadlines provided by this Order.
J. Training Records (Request for Production Nos. 31, 32, 33)

Request for Production No. 31 seeks the production of “all documents and other records
pertaining to orientation training of LaSalle Management staff at any and all facilities operated
by LaSalle Management located in Louisiana used to hold pretrial detainees and people in DPSC
custody, in effect from January 1, 2014 onward.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 14-15). Request for
Production No. 32 seeks the production of “all documents and other records pertaining to in-
service training of LaSalle Corrections staff at any and all facilities operated by LaSalle
Management located in Louisiana used to hold pretrial detainees and people in DPSC custody, in
effect from January 1, 2014 onward.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 15-16). Request for Production No. 33
seeks the production of “all policies and procedures in effect from January 1, 2019 onward
regarding prisoner classification, responses to prisoner reports of threats, investigation of reports
of threats, [and] observation and supervision of prisoner housing units.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 16).
Defendants objected to Request for Production Nos. 31, 32, and 33(b) based on relevance
and disproportionality with respect to the temporal scope of the requests, the inclusion of
facilities in which Plaintiffs were never held, but agreed to produce responsive documents after a
diligent search was completed without waiving these objections. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 13-15).
Defendants also produced certain logs as responsive to Request for Production No. 33(a), raising

similar objections. (R. Doc. 68-5 at 8). Defendants also objected to Request for Production No.
33 as vague to the extent it used the phrase “signs of increasing tension” in its subsections. (R.
Doc. 68-5 at 8; R. Doc. 68-6 at 5).
The Court finds it appropriate to limit the temporal scope of these requests to January 1,
2019 to June 1, 2021. This will allow for the discovery of training documents and policies and
procedures in place while the Plaintiffs were incarcerated, as well as materials immediately
before and after the Plaintiffs were incarcerated. This temporal limitation strikes the proper
balance with respect to relevance and proportionality. To the extent this time period includes
documents or information related to the management of the facility by an entity other than

LaSalle, including Security Management, the Court nevertheless finds that the documents fall
within the scope of discovery.
As discussed above, the Court will also limit the scope of discoverable information to
those training documents and policies and procedures in place at MPCC. Documents pertaining
to other LaSalle facilities are neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case.
K. Investigation, Classification, and Critical Incident Responses (Request for
Production Nos. 34, 43, 45, 46, 47,5 50, 51, 52, 53)

Request for Production No. 34 seeks “all policies and procedures regarding post-critical
incident reviews, re-training, meetings, discussions in effect from January 1, 2019 onward.” (R.

5 The Court addresses Request for Production No. 47 in Sections II(G), II(L).
Doc. 68-2 at 16). Defendants objected based on relevance, proportionality, and temporal
overbreadth. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 16). Plaintiffs do not specifically address this document request in
their motion. In opposition, Defendants state that the request must be limited because “Plaintiffs
again seek documents beyond any time period that could be considered relevant to their claims.”
(R. Doc. 78 at 7).

Request for Production No. 43 seeks “all policies and procedures for tracking, reporting
and responding to critical incidents, suspicious injuries, observed altercations, [and] reports of
altercations among prisoners from January 1, 2019 to present.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 18). Defendants
objected based on relevance, proportionality, and temporal overbreadth, noting that they had
previously produced a document (MCC Classification Policy eff. 5.14 signed (MCCC P1)) as
responsive to this request. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 21). Plaintiffs state that the produced Classification
Policy “does not provide for reporting, incident tracking, [and] investigation in response to
incidents” as sought. (R. Doc. 68-1 at 10). Defendants do not specifically address this document
request in its opposition.

Request for Production No. 45 seeks “all documents pertaining to policy, procedure and
practice investigation incident reports and/or reports of prisoner altercations and/or violence
from January 1, 2019 to present.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 19). Defendants objected based on relevance,
proportionality, and temporal overbreadth. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 22). Neither party specifically
discusses this document request in their filings.
Request for Production No. 46 seeks “all documents, policies, procedures, meeting
minutes, emails, or other records pertaining to any housing unit assignment plan, identification of
classification designations, identification of housing populations, and/or the creation of any unit
specifically designed to hold pre-trial people.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 19). Defendants objected based
on relevance, proportionality, temporal overbreadth, and vagueness with respect to the terms and
phrases “housing unit assignment plan,” “classification designations,” and “unit specifically
designed to hold pre-trial.” (R. Doc. 68-6 at 22). In support of their motion, Plaintiffs clarify that
their “request is for anything related to classification, all of which is directly relevant to
Plaintiffs’ claim that MPCC did not have any classification system in place creating a substantial

risk of harm.” (R. Doc. 68-1 at 10). Defendants respond that they have not conducted searches
for ESI given that Plaintiffs have not supplied any appropriate search terms. (R. Doc. 78 at 7-8).
Request for Production Nos. 50 and 51 collectively seek all documents pertaining to
policies, procedures and practices of “escorting prisoners for medical care after altercation with
another prisoner” or “for routing prisoners to the hospital or any other provider for outside care.”
(R. Doc. 68-2 at 20). Defendants objected to these requests based on relevance and
disproportionality with respect to the temporal scope of the requests and the lack of any
limitation to the claims made in the pleadings. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 25-26). Noting that “DOC
regulations and/or Louisiana substantive law provide certain responsibilities regarding discipline

of inmates/detainees,” Defendants nevertheless agreed to produce responsive documents after a
diligent search (R. Doc. 68-6 at 25-26). In their opposition, Defendants reassert their objections
related to the temporal scope of the requests. (R. Doc. 78 at 8).
Request for Production No. 52 seeks the production of “all documents reflecting
shakedowns from January 1, 2019 to present.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 20). Defendants objected based
on relevance, proportionality, and temporal overbreadth, but agreed to produce documents after a
diligent search. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 26). In their opposition, Defendants reassert their objections
related to the temporal scope of the requests, as well as to the extent it is not limited to the
MPCC. (R. Doc. 78 at 8).
Request for Production No. 53 seeks the production of “all documents pertaining to
contraband from January 1, 2019 to present.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 20). Defendants objected based on
relevance, proportionality, and temporal overbreadth, but agreed to produce documents after a
diligent search, and directed Plaintiffs to “Monthly Activity Reports provided to DPSC.” (R.
Doc. 68-5 at 10). In support of their motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Monthly Activity Reports

are only “partially responsive” to the request because they “do not include any information
related to investigations, disciplinary actions, or criminal charges.” (R. Doc. 68-1 at 10). In their
opposition, Defendants reassert their objections related to the temporal scope of the requests, as
well as to the extent it is not limited to the MPCC. (R. Doc. 78 at 8).
The Court finds it appropriate to limit the temporal scope of Request for Production Nos.
34, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, and 53 to January 1, 2019 to June 1, 2021. This will allow for the
discovery of policies and procedures in place while the Plaintiffs were incarcerated, as well as
materials immediately before and after the Plaintiffs were incarcerated. This temporal limitation
strikes the proper balance with respect to relevance and proportionality. To the extent this time

period includes documents or information related to the management of the MPCC by an entity
other than LaSalle, including Security Management, the Court nevertheless finds that the
documents fall within the scope of discovery. The requests are limited, however, to documents
and information pertinent to MPCC.
Finally, Defendants must collect and produce responsive ESI in conformity with the
terms of this Order discussed above.
L. Disciplinary Practices (Request for Production Nos. 47, 48, 49)

Request for Production No. 47 seeks production of “documents pertaining to all
incidents, uses of force, disciplinary actions and altercations involving plaintiffs.” (R. Doc. 68-
6). As discussed above, the Court interprets this request in its entirety as seeking information
related to incidents involving the three Plaintiffs in this action. Defendants indicate in their
opposition that they “intend to provide responsive documents to that request as narrowed by the
parties.” (R. Doc. 78 at 8). Defendants shall conduct a reasonable search and produce responsive
documents as agreed upon.

Request for Production No. 48 and 49 collectively seek production of all documents
pertaining to the policies, procedures, and practices of “issuing disciplinary ‘write-ups’” and “of
placing prisoners in administrative segregation or ‘lock-down.’” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 19-20).
Defendants objected to these requests based on relevance and disproportionality with respect to
the temporal scope of the requests and the lack of any limitation to the claims made in the
pleadings. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 24-25). Noting that “DOC regulations and/or Louisiana substantive
law provide certain responsibilities regarding discipline of inmates/detainees,” Defendants
nevertheless agreed to produce responsive documents after a diligent search. (R. Doc. 68-6 at 24-
25). In opposing this motion, Defendants state that they “intend to provide responsive documents

regarding those requested policies at MPCC at the time the Plaintiffs were held there, unless
otherwise compelled by the Court.” (R. Doc. 78 at 9).
The Court finds it appropriate to limit the temporal scope of these requests to January 1,
2019 to June 1, 2021. This will allow for the discovery of disciplinary practices in place while
the Plaintiffs were incarcerated, as well as materials immediately before and after the Plaintiffs
were incarcerated. This temporal limitation strikes the proper balance with respect to relevance
and proportionality. To the extent this time period includes documents or information related to
the management of the facility by an entity other than LaSalle, including Security Management,
the Court nevertheless finds that the documents fall within the scope of discovery.
M. Personnel Files of Named Defendants (Request for Production No. 63)
Request for Production No. 63 seeks the production of “employment records” for each of
the individual defendants at issue “related to their employment at [MPCC], Madison Parish
Sheriff’s Office and/or with LaSalle Management.” (R. Doc. 68-2 at 22-23). Defendants agreed
to search for and provide the sought personal information (with appropriate redactions if

necessary). (R. Doc 68-6 at 32).
In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants raise no arguments regarding these requests
for production. Accordingly, the Court will require Defendants to respond to the requests as
stated within the deadlines provided by this Order. Defendants must provide an accompanying
privilege log to the extent any responsive documents are redacted or withheld as privileged.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from
Madison Parish Sheriff Sammie Byrd and the LaSalle Defendants (R. Doc. 68) is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before March 24, 2023, Defendants shall
produce supplemental discovery responses and productions consistent with the body of this
Order. At the time of production, Defendants must certify that they have conducted a diligent
search and identify the efforts made to locate responsive documents and information.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 15, 2023.
S
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192533. Public record. Not legal advice.