John B. v. Goetz, 3:98–0168.

Citation879 F.Supp.2d 787
Decision Date28 January 2010
Docket NumberNo. 3:98–0168.,3:98–0168.
PartiesJOHN B., Carrie G., Joshua M., Megan A. and Erica A., by their next friend, L.A.; Dustin P., by his next friend, Linda C.; Bayli S. by her next friend, C.W.; James D. by his next friend, Susan H.; Elsie H. by her next friend, Stacy Miller; Julian C. by his next friend, Shawn C.; Troy D. by his next friend, T.W.; Ray M. by his next friend, P.D.; Roscoe W. by his next friend, K.B.; Jacob R. by his next friend, Kim B.; Justin S. by his next friend, Diane P.; Estel W. by his next friend, E.D.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dave GOETZ, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration; Darin Gordon, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of TennCare; and Viola Miller, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Children's Services, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Barry Leigh Weissman, Leanna Marie Anderson, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Los Angeles, CA, George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Michele M. Johnson, Christopher E. Coleman, Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Nashville, TN, Mary B. Anderson, Robert Thomas Joseph, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, IL, Victoria Reznik, Andrew Dunlap, Katherine L. McDaniel, Michael H. Reed, Kirkland & Ellis, New York, NY, Tony L. Richardson, for Plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM

WILLIAM J. HAYNES, JR., District Judge.

+-----------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
                +-----------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦                                           ¦    ¦
                +--+-------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦I.¦History of this Litigation                 ¦796 ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦A.  ¦Consent Decree and Earlier Proceedings                    ¦797   ¦
                +---+----+----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦B.  ¦The Court's 2001 Findings of the Defendants' Noncompliance¦801   ¦
                +---+----+----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦C.  ¦The Court's 2004 Findings of the Defendants' Noncompliance¦808   ¦
                +---+----+----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦D.  ¦The Recusal Order and Reassignment                        ¦811   ¦
                +---+----+----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦E.  ¦The 2006 Discovery Proceedings                            ¦814   ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦                                                                ¦       ¦
                +---+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II.¦Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel                            ¦819    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦A.¦Findings of Fact                ¦819¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦    ¦1. ¦Information Requirements and Discovery Rights under the ¦819   ¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦   ¦Consent Decree                                          ¦      ¦
                +---+----+---+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦2. ¦The Lack of Preservation of Relevant Records            ¦821   ¦
                +---+----+---+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦3. ¦Inadequacies in the Defendants' 2006 Paper Production   ¦828   ¦
                +---+----+---+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦4. ¦The Necessity of Plaintiffs' ESI Discovery Requests     ¦833   ¦
                +---+----+---+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦5. ¦The Costs of ESI Production                             ¦835   ¦
                +---+----+---+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦6. ¦Privileged Information in the ESI Production            ¦839   ¦
                +---+----+---+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦7. ¦Defendants' Failures to Answer Plaintiffs' Requests for ¦850   ¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦   ¦Admissions and to Comply with the January 14th Order    ¦      ¦
                +---+----+---+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦8. ¦Other ESI Production Issues                             ¦857   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦B.¦Conclusions of Law              ¦857¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦  ¦1.¦Discovery from the MCCs                ¦857  ¦
                +--+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦2.¦Discovery Standards                    ¦860  ¦
                +--+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦3.¦Discovery Rules on Electronic Discovery¦861  ¦
                +--+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦4.¦Duty to Preserve                       ¦867  ¦
                +--+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦5.¦The Undue Burden Analysis              ¦875  ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦    ¦   ¦(i)¦Types of ESI Data                                  ¦875    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(ii) ¦Defendants' and MCCs' Databases                   ¦881    ¦
                +---+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦(iii)¦The Costs of Production                           ¦881    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦    ¦6. ¦The Good Cause Showing and the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) factors¦884   ¦
                +---+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦7. ¦Privilege Issues                                       ¦889   ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦  ¦  ¦a.¦Attorney–Client Privilege          ¦892  ¦
                +--+--+--+--+-----------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦  ¦b.¦Work Product Privilege             ¦896  ¦
                +--+--+--+--+-----------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦  ¦c.¦Joint Defense Privilege            ¦897  ¦
                +--+--+--+--+-----------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦  ¦d.¦Deliberative Process Privilege     ¦898  ¦
                +--+--+--+--+-----------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦  ¦e.¦State Statutory Privileges         ¦899  ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦    ¦8. ¦Defendants' Failures to Answer Plaintiffs' Requests for ¦904   ¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦   ¦Admissions and to Comply with the January 14th Order    ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦                                                                ¦       ¦
                +----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦III.¦Remedies                                                        ¦908    ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

Plaintiffs, John B., and other minors through their next friends, filed this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated minors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdiction statute, with its statutory counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and (4). Plaintiffs' action is on behalf of a class of approximately 550,000 children who are entitled under federal law to medical services that include early and periodic screenings for their physical well being, including their dental and behavioral health needs. Federal law also requires any necessary follow-up medical services. The Plaintiffs' class includes children who are in the state's custody through the state's juvenile court system and other children's programs provided by the State of Tennessee.

Plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights under Title VI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–629 and 670–679 and Title XIX of that Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. as well as remedies for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In essence, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants deprived them of their rights to early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT) services and related medical care for children under State's TennCare program and children who are in the Defendants' legal custody and are also entitled to such services under Title VI.

The original Defendants were Nancy Menke, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Health; Theresa Clarke, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of TennCare; and George Hattaway, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Children's Services. The successors in office and current Defendants are: David Goetz, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration; J.D. Hickey, Assistant Commissioner, TennCare Bureau 1; and Viola Miller, Tennessee Department of Children's Services. The Defendants are state officials who are in charge of the State programs for these services that are federally funded by Congress under Title VI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620– 629 and 670– 679 and Title XIX of that Act. The medical services at issue are provided under the State's TennCare program, a waiver...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Green v. Sch. Admin. Unit #55
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 19 avril 2016
    ...what its government is up to," Prof'l Firefighters of N.H., 159 N.H. at 705, 992 A.2d 582 (quotation omitted). See John B. v. Goetz , 879 F.Supp.2d 787, 877 (M.D.Tenn.2010) ("Electronically stored information, if kept in electronic form ... can be very inexpensive to search through and sort......
  • Elvis Presley Enters. v. City of Memphis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • 16 juillet 2020
    ...and the Work-Product Doctrine, American Bar Association Section of Litigation at 196 (4th ed. 2001)); see also John B. v. Goetz, 879 F. Supp. 2d 787, 897-98 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) (citations omitted). The common interest privilege may be claimed in three instances: (1) when a single attorney rep......
  • Helicopters v. City of Columbus
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 18 juillet 2012
    ...motion for summary judgment on Count III.III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the as-construed motion to drop [879 F.Supp.2d 787]the Police from this litigation (ECF No. 63) made by Versatile, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. ......
  • In re Haynes, Case No. 3:16–bk–30352–SHB
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 11 août 2017
    ...738("When a lawyer provides non-legal services, such as supplying business advice, the privilege does not attach."); John B. v. Goetz , 879 F.Supp.2d 787, 894–95 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) (" '[T]he attorney-client privilege protects only communications pertaining to legal assistance and advice and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
4 books & journal articles
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • 1 mai 2023
    ...Collins & Aikman Corp ., 256 F.R.D. 403, 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (electronically stored information is discoverable); John B. v. Goetz , 879 F. Supp. 2d 787, 878 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) (“[I]t is a well accepted proposition that deleted computer files, whether they be e-mails or otherwise, are discov......
  • Discovery and Your Expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses
    • 4 mai 2022
    ...concluded that it was incumbent not to slow production pending scrupulous scrutiny of each document for privilege.” John B. v. Goetz , 879 F. Supp. 2d 787, 892 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). The court concluded that a statement at a prior hearing established that the defendants consented to the clawbac......
  • Discovery and Your Expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2021 Contents
    • 4 août 2021
    ...concluded that it was incumbent not to slow production pending scrupulous scrutiny of each document for privilege.” John B. v. Goetz , 879 F. Supp. 2d 787, 892 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). The court concluded that a statement at a prior hearing established that the defendants consented to the clawbac......
  • Discovery and Your Expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2020 Contents
    • 4 août 2020
    ...concluded that it was incumbent not to slow production pending scrupulous scrutiny of each document for privilege.” John B. v. Goetz , 879 F. Supp. 2d 787, 892 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). The court concluded that a statement at a prior hearing established that the defendants consented to the clawbac......

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