In Ortiz v. Pierce Cnty., No. 3:22-cv-05947-JLR-TLF (W.D. Wash. Oct. 29, 2024), Washington Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and ordered the defendant, NaphCare, to produce documents related to their provision of medical care at Pierce County Jail in the past five years, finding the requested documents were relevant to the plaintiff’s Monell claim.

But first: We Need Your Help! The eDiscovery Today State of the Industry Report survey is currently live, with 12 questions about the state of the eDiscovery industry, including questions on generative AI, technology assisted review (TAR), mobile device and collaboration app discovery, eDiscovery use cases, hyperlinked files, and more! Takes two minutes to fill out. Please check it out here – doing so will get you a FREE copy of the report when it’s published in January.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

I decided to conduct an experiment with this case and ran the case ruling through Google’s NotebookLM to create a summary. Here is what it generated:

Case: Hector Cody Ortiz, III v. Pierce County, et al.

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington

Date: October 29, 2024

Judge: Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke

Subject: Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion to Seal

Summary:

This case involves a civil rights claim by Plaintiff Hector Cody Ortiz regarding inadequate dental treatment received while incarcerated at Pierce County Jail. Ortiz is suing both Pierce County and NaphCare, the company contracted to provide healthcare services at the jail. This specific order addresses Ortiz’s motions to compel discovery from NaphCare and to seal certain documents.

Key Issues & Rulings:

1. Documents Related to NaphCare’s Provision of Medical Care

• Ortiz’s Argument: Ortiz seeks documents related to external audits of NaphCare’s medical services in Washington State, and internal documents reflecting risk management and quality improvement efforts at Pierce County Jail. He argues these are relevant to his “Monell claim,” which alleges that NaphCare’s policies and practices prioritize profit over patient care.
• NaphCare’s Argument: NaphCare argues the requests are overbroad and irrelevant, particularly those seeking audits from other facilities.
• Court’s Ruling: The court GRANTS the motion to compel, citing precedent from similar cases (Tapia v. NaphCare, Rapp v. NaphCare) where such discovery was deemed relevant to Monell claims. The court finds the requests reasonably tailored to a five-year period and facilities in Washington.

2. Interrogatories Regarding Corporate Information

• Ortiz’s Argument: Ortiz seeks information about NaphCare’s corporate structure, including related entities, shareholders, officers, and their compensation. He argues this information is relevant to both his Monell claim (alleged profit-driven policies) and potential punitive damages.
• NaphCare’s Argument: NaphCare challenges the basis of Ortiz’s Monell claim.
• Court’s Ruling: The court GRANTS the motion to compel. It finds that the information is relevant to both the Monell claim and potential punitive damages, as the financial information can shed light on NaphCare’s priorities and financial capacity.

3. Documents Relating to NaphCare’s Budget and Profits at Pierce County Jail

• Ortiz’s Argument: Ortiz seeks documents detailing NaphCare’s budget, expenses, and profits related to its operations at Pierce County Jail. He argues this is relevant to his Monell claim.
• NaphCare’s Argument: NaphCare argues these requests are overbroad, invasive, and irrelevant.
• Court’s Ruling: The court GRANTS the motion to compel, again citing relevance to the Monell claim and potential punitive damages. However, the court instructs the parties to agree on a specific and reasonable date range for the requested documents.

4. NaphCare’s Privilege and Privacy Objections

• Court’s Ruling: The court orders NaphCare to provide a privilege log for any withheld documents and reminds them of the existing protective order to address concerns about confidential information.

5. Motion to Seal

• Ortiz’s Argument: Ortiz seeks to seal a 2015 NaphCare proposal for services at Pierce County Jail, designated confidential by NaphCare.
• NaphCare’s Argument: NaphCare argues the document contains commercially sensitive information, including proprietary approaches, strategies, and pricing details. They fear public disclosure could harm their competitive advantage.
• Ortiz’s Counter-Argument: Ortiz argues the information is already publicly available, citing similar proposals NaphCare submitted to other jurisdictions found online.
• Court’s Ruling: The court DENIES the motion to seal. It finds that because the information is easily accessible online, NaphCare has not demonstrated that public disclosure would cause them harm.

Quotes:

• Monell Claim Standard: “To set forth a claim under Monell a plaintiff must show the defendant’s employees or agents acted through an official custom, pattern, or policy permitting deliberate indifference to, or violating the plaintiff’s civil rights, or that the entity ratified the unlawful conduct.”
• Relevance to Monell Claim: “District courts addressing discovery-related disputes in cases involving Monell claims have routinely recognized that such claims often require a broad and substantial amount of discovery that would not be involved if the plaintiff sued only the individuals directly involved in the deprivation of his rights.”
• Punitive Damages and Financial Information: “Further, information about a defendant’s net worth is “traditionally admissible as a measure of the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded.”
• Public Access to Judicial Records: “The Ninth Circuit has applied a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.”

Overall:

The court largely sides with Ortiz, granting his motions to compel discovery from NaphCare. The court emphasizes the relevance of the requested information to Ortiz’s Monell claim, which focuses on NaphCare’s alleged policies and practices. The court also recognizes the need for financial information in the context of potential punitive damages. The court’s denial of the motion to seal reaffirms the strong presumption of public access to court records, particularly when the information in question is already publicly available.

So, what do you think? Do you agree that the requested documents were relevant to the plaintiff’s Monell claim? And what do you think about this experiment? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.