Jackson v. City of Montgomery (Ex parte City of Montgomery), 1150439, 1150452.

Decision Date10 June 2016
Docket Number1150439, 1150452.
Citation213 So.3d 552
Parties Ex parte CITY OF MONTGOMERY. (In re Sabrina Jackson, as administratrix of the Estate of Tony Lewis, Jr., deceased v. City of Montgomery and QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care ) Ex parte QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care. (In re Sabrina Jackson, as administratrix of the Estate of Tony Lewis, Jr., deceased v. City of Montgomery and QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care).
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Stacy Lott Reed and Michael D. Brymer, City of Montgomery Legal Department, for petitioner City of Montgomery.

R. Jordan Wood and Jonathan M. Hooks of Christian & Small, LLP, Birmingham, for petitioner QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care.

Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., of McPhillips Shinbaum, LLP, Montgomery, for respondent.

MAIN, Justice.

Sabrina Jackson, as the administratrix of the estate of Tony Lewis, Jr., deceased, filed a verified petition in the Montgomery Circuit Court, pursuant to Rule 27(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., requesting preaction discovery from the City of Montgomery ("the City") and QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care ("Quality") (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the defendants"). The circuit court granted that petition. The defendants have separately petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its order and to dismiss Jackson's Rule 27(a) petition. We grant the petitions and issue the writs.

Facts and Procedural History

On March 31, 2015, Jackson, as the administratrix of Lewis's estate, filed a verified petition for preaction discovery pursuant to Rule 27(a), Ala. R. Civ. P. That petition stated that Lewis was being held in the Montgomery municipal jail when he died unexpectedly on the night of January 12, 2015, or the early morning hours of January 13, 2015. According to the petition, the City is responsible for the operation of the jail and Quality is a private contractor that provided health-care personnel to attend to the medical needs of the inmates who were incarcerated in the jail. Jackson's Rule 27(a) petition alleged:

"Based upon information and affidavits from other inmates who were held in the Montgomery Municipal Jail at the same time as decedent, the Petitioner believes jail authorities and health care personnel were negligent and deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of Tony Lewis, and thereby denied the decedent Tony Lewis, Jr. treatment needed to save his life, if said treatment had been administered promptly."

The petition further alleged that the City had "negligently allowed dangerous drugs to be brought into its municipal jail and negligently failed to monitor its inmates carefully enough to make sure such drugs were not used." The petition also stated that Jackson "believes that [Lewis] was given some medication by the health[-]care personnel, which may have caused him to stop breathing," and that this act "may have amounted to negligent malpractice and/or deliberate indifference to Mr. Lewis's medical needs." The petition alleged that Jackson's "ability to protect Mr. Lewis's rights may be substantially damaged if [Jackson] is not allowed to obtain the information requested in the attached interrogatories and requests for production." The petition further alleged that "a cause of action or causes of action may exist against [the defendants] and potentially other persons or entities." According to the petition, allowing preaction discovery "would benefit all parties by allowing the production of relevant and material information, records, and documents, and may disclose the identity of other proper parties to this lawsuit, and would further serve to prevent a frivolous lawsuit in the event no such claim or claims exist." Jackson's requests for production included, among other things, Lewis's medical records, any documents referencing Lewis, any complaints made against Quality or the City in the last 5 years concerning inmate health care, personnel files of the individuals who had treated Lewis, the name and cause of death for any inmate who has died in the Montgomery municipal jail in the last 10 years, and any video footage recorded in the Montgomery municipal jail on January 11–13, 2015.

On May 6, 2015, Quality responded to Jackson's petition. Quality argued that Jackson was seeking information that was not allowed under Rule 27, Ala. R. Civ. P., and asked the circuit court to deny Jackson's petition. Nevertheless, Quality stated that it was willing to voluntarily provide Lewis's medical records to Jackson on the condition that Jackson agree to a protective order prohibiting the use or disclosure of the medical records except for the purposes of evaluating any claims available to Jackson and of using the medical records in any resulting litigation.

On May 8, 2015, Jackson filed a motion in which she consented to a "reasonable protective order" and invited Quality's counsel to send such an order to Jackson's counsel for review. On May 15, 2015, Jackson replied to Quality's response to her Rule 27 petition. In her reply, Jackson conceded that interrogatories are not allowed under Rule 27. Jackson also stated that she would accept Quality's offer to voluntarily provide Lewis's medical records. In addition to those medical records, Jackson continued to seek the production of other documents or recordings related to Lewis.

On August 3, 2015, the circuit court issued an order stating, in pertinent part:

"On June 5, 2015, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel City of Montgomery to Answer Verified Rule 27 Pre–Filing Discovery.’ On the same date, the Petitioner also filed an ‘Amended Complaint.’ According to the court record, RespondentCity of Montgomery was not served until June 10, 2015, with the pre-suit discovery Petition and the ‘Amended Complaint.’ On June 24, 2015, the RespondentCity of Montgomery filed its objection to the Petitioner's motion to compel arguing it was not served until June 10, 2015, and the motion to compel was improperly filed since Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 27(a)(2) requires a Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 27 petition seeking pre-suit discovery be served in compliance with Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 4(c). After service of the petition is perfected, a respondent is afforded at least thirty (30) days to respond to the petition. Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 27(a)(2).
"On July 2, 2015, this Court conducted a hearing on Petitioner's motion to compel and the City of Montgomery's response. At the hearing were Petitioner's counsel; counsel for RespondentCity of Montgomery; and counsel for Respondent-[Quality]. Petitioner's counsel effectively withdrew his motion to compel. Therefore, Petitioner's Motion to Compel is DENIED as MOOT. During the hearing, question arose regarding the procedural posture of the case since the Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 27 pre-suit discovery petition has not been disposed of, but the Petitioner has subsequently filed an ‘amended complaint’ despite not filing an original complaint.
" Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 3(a) states: ‘A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.’ Additionally, Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 7(a) states: ‘There shall be a complaint.’ In Arrington v. Courtyard Citiflats, LLC, [Ms. 1140264, June 12, 2015] ––– So.3d –––– (Ala.2015), the Alabama Supreme Court noted a ‘civil action is commenced by filing a complaint....’ No rule or present caselaw allows for a Rule 27 pre-suit discovery petition to ‘convert’ into a complaint much less an amended complaint. Therefore, the Petitioner's ‘Amended Complaint’ is STRICKEN from the record.
Once pre-suit discovery is completed, the Petitioner can decide what, if any, causes of action [she] may have against the Respondents. Then, the Petitioner may commence a civil action by following Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 3(a) and 7(a).
"Because Petitioner's Rule 27 pre-suit discovery petition has not yet been heard by this court, the court gives the Respondents thirty (30) days from the date of this order to respond in accordance with Ala. R. Civ. Pro. 27(a)(2) at which point this court will set a hearing on the petition and the responses to determine if pre-suit discovery will be ordered.
"In conclusion, it is hereby ordered that the ‘Amended Complaint’ improperly filed by the Petitioner is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD; the Petitioner's Motion to Compel is DENIED AS MOOT; and the Respondents are given THIRTY (30) DAYS to respond to the pending Rule 27 pre-suit discovery petition."

(Capitalization in original.)

On September 1, 2015, the City responded to Jackson's preaction-discovery petition. Like Quality, the City argued that Jackson was seeking information that was not allowed under Rule 27, Ala. R. Civ. P., and asked the circuit court to deny Jackson's petition.

After conducting a hearing, the circuit court on October 13, 2015, issued an order that stated, in pertinent part:

"This Court notes that [Jackson's] counsel conceded that interrogatories were inappropriate, but under Rule 27 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, he was entitled to obtain answers to his Requests of Production of Documents from both parties under Rule 34 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and allowed to take depositions pursuant to Rule 27 under Rule 35.
"This court heard arguments from both counsel who referred to the recent Alabama Supreme Court opinion of Ex parte Ferrari, 171 So.3d 631 (Ala.2015), and this Court having considered the same as well as arguments from counsel, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that both the Defendants City of Montgomery and [Quality] will produce documents requested by [Jackson] in her original verified petition filed on March 31, 2015, with Request for Production of Documents attached; and it is further hereby ORDERED that the Defendant [Quality] will make available two nurses for depositions, identified in a January 12, 2015, written statement as being Nurse McDaniel and Nurse C. Davis for the purposes of perpetuating their testimony concerning events that occurred on the night of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT