United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
Johnston, United States Magistrate Judge.
Adrian Guille is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and
without counsel. Although his claims arose while he was
incarcerated at Montana State, he was transferred to a
facility in New Jersey on March 27, 2017. (Doc. 111-1, Notice
of Change of Address, Doc. 112.) Pending are Mr. Guille's
Motion to Compel (Doc. 83) and Defendants' Motion for a
Protective Order (Doc. 90).
discovery request at issue is Mr. Guille's request for
“any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents
received by prison staff, concerning the mistreatment of
inmates by the IPS Defendants and any memoranda,
investigative files, or other documents created in response
to such complaints from July 5, 2012 to July 5, 2013.”
(Mtn to Compel, Doc. 84 at 2.) Defendants argue the motion
should be denied because “1) he seeks documents that
are not relevant; 2) searching for and producing the
requested documents would impose a significant undue burden
on Defendants; 3) production of these documents could
compromise safety and security at MSP; and 4) the documents
cannot be used as character evidence.” (Doc. 88 at 2.)
Court addressed the relevancy of the requested documents on
two prior occasions finding that “other inmates'
grievances regarding the use of force by the individual
Defendants prior to July 5, 2013 may be vital to establishing
supervisory liability.” (December 16, 2015 Order, Doc.
51 at 5-6, n.3; August 19, 2016 Order, Doc. 79 at 29.) In its
August 19, 2016 Order, the Court indicated that it was
“inclined to order the production of these documents
with the redaction of names and other confidential
information of the inmates making and/or involved in the
grievances.” (Doc. 79 at 30.)
Court conducted two hearings on Defendants' “unduly
burdensome” defense to the motion to compel. Based upon
the evidence presented at those hearings, the Court finds
that there is a method by which MSP can obtain the
information responsive to Mr. Guille's request which is
not unduly burdensome.
upon the testimony of Associate Warden Wood there are use of
force packets which contain a cover sheet stating the names
of the officers involved. Therefore, it appears that it would
be possible for Defendants to review the approximately 60-100
use of force packets for July 5, 2012 through July 5, 2013 to
determine in which use of force incidents IPS officers
Sweeney, Knight, Short, Trudeau, Kent, and Segovia were
involved. From that information, it could be determined if an
inmate filed a grievance complaining about the use of force
by the named Defendants.
the Court is going to require the production of documents
requested by Mr. Guille. In order to protect the
confidentiality of the grievance process, the Court will
allow the documents to be redacted to remove all reference to
other inmates and MSP staff not named as Defendants in this
lawsuit. Should Defendants want additional protections
regarding these documents they may present a draft protective
order within 10 days of the date of this Order.
upon the foregoing the Court issues the following:
Guille's Motion to Compel (Doc. 83) is GRANTED.
Defendants shall produce to Mr. Guille “any and all
grievances, complaints, or other documents received by prison
staff, concerning the mistreatment of inmates by the IPS
Defendants and any memoranda, investigative files, or other
documents created in response to such complaints from July 5,
2012 to July 5, 2013” within 30 days of the date of
this Order. If an inmate filed a grievance regarding a
particular use of force, the use of force packet should be
documents may be redacted to remove all identifying
information regarding the identity of other inmates and MSP
staff not named as defendants in this action. The Non-IPS
team Defendants shall have 21 days after the production of
these documents to renew their motion for summary judgment.
Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. 90) is
or before August 31, 2017, Defendants shall advise the Court
whether they would be willing to participate in a mediation
of this matter.
Guille must immediately advise the Court and opposing counsel
of any change of address and its effective date. Failure to
file a notice of change of address may result in the
dismissal of the action for ...