Scott v. Clarke

• Decision Date: 03 March 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:12cv00036
• Parties: CYNTHIA B. SCOTT et al., Plaintiffs, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

CYNTHIA B. SCOTT et al., Plaintiffs, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:12cv00036

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division

March 3, 2021

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

By: Joel C. Hoppe United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' supplemented petition for award of attorneys' fees following their motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement's quarterly reporting provision. ECF Nos. 688, 734; see Mem. Op. of May 7, 2020, ECF No. 677; Settlement Agreement § III(2)(b)(xxi), ECF No. 221-1, at 14; Pls.' Mot. to Enforce, ECF No. 651. Plaintiffs seek $11,445.60 for bringing the motion and fee petition, see ECF Nos. 688, 705, plus another $957.60 for time spent trying to "cooperatively engage" Defendants and "drafting and filing a motion for mediation," ECF No. 734. Their supplemented petition seeking $12,403.20 total in attorneys' fees has been fully briefed, ECF Nos. 689, 702, 705, 745, 749, and may be resolved without a hearing. Having considered the parties' arguments, evidence, and the applicable law, I respectfully recommend the Court award Plaintiffs $8,570.80 in attorneys' fees incurred in bringing the enforcement motion. ECF No. 688. Plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to attorneys' fees for time spent corresponding with Defense counsel or bringing the motion for mediation. ECF No. 734.

I. Background

Almost nine years ago, women at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women ("FCCW") filed this lawsuit "seeking a remedy for pervasive constitutionally deficient medical care." Scott v. Clarke, 355 F. Supp. 3d 472, 506 (W.D. Va.), amended by 391 F. Supp. 3d 610 (W.D. Va. 2019) (Moon, J.). "After two years of litigation, and days before a scheduled bench trial" on the merits, "the parties reached a settlement in principle. They spent the next ten months hashing out the details." Id. at 478. (citation omitted). In September 2015, the parties jointly submitted a "detailed settlement agreement ('Settlement Agreement' or 'the agreement') to provide for constitutionally adequate medical care at FCCW." Id. at 477; see id. at 477-79. "The point of the Settlement Agreement was to implement specific practices and standards to remedy [ongoing] constitutional shortcoming[s]" in both the quantity and quality of medical care provided to women housed at FCCW. Id. at 494; see also Scott v. Clarke, 2016 WL 452164, at *4 (W.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2016) ("[T]he Settlement Agreement addresses with particularity each of the problems Plaintiffs identified in their Complaint and fully developed in the record with the evidence supporting their . . . motion for class certification and their . . . motion for partial summary judgment."). The agreement "sets out twenty-two standards governing FCCW," plus "other discrete requirements," Scott, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 495, designed to "measure its performance" with respect to each standard and promote "comprehensive quality improvement," Settlement Agreement § III(b)(2)(xxi)-(xxii).

As part of the agreement, the Court appointed a Settlement Compliance Monitor to visit FCCW four times a year (for at least three years) to speak confidentially with inmates and staff, inspect facilities, and review medical files and grievances as he deemed necessary to "provide a report reflecting the results of each visit to the parties." Scott, 2016 WL 452164, at *4. see also Scott, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 501-02. These detailed reports were to "identify to the parties any areas or subjects" where the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") was "not in compliance with the provisions of the settlement or Eighth Amendment standards," and VDOC would "have 30 days from the date of such notice within which to correct any areas of noncompliance. . . ."Scott, 2016 WL 452164, at *4. If the problem(s) persisted after 30 days, then Plaintiffs could file "a motion in this Court to enforce the settlement, seek contempt sanctions, or both." Id.; see, e.g., Scott, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 504 ("The Court has reviewed the eight standards it has found Defendants breached, as well as the egregious facts surrounding many of them. The Court finds those standards are clear enough that Defendants should easily have known that what has transpired at FCCW is unacceptable under the agreement.").

Separately, FCCW must "measure its performance on each aspect of the obligations imposed by th[e] Settlement Agreement" and "analyze[] qualitatively" the quantitative data collected from mortality reviews, grievance analyses, and patient satisfaction surveys "so as to identify opportunities for improvement and identify remedies" for shortcomings. Settlement Agreement § III(b)(2)(xxi); see Mem. Op. of May 7, 2020, at 5 ("The language of this specific provision clearly places on FCCW—not the Compliance Monitor—the obligation to 'measure its performance.'"); id. at 9 (noting that § III(b)(2)(xxi) "was meant to have independent effect from the other reporting and monitoring" provisions). FCCW also "must 'track[] and trend[]' its performance over time and share that information with the Parties through counsel on a quarterly basis" for as long as the Settlement Agreement is in effect. Id. (quoting Settlement Agreement § III(b)(2)(xxi) ("Performance shall be tracked and trended and shared with the Parties through counsel on a quarterly basis while this Settlement Agreement is in effect.")).

On February 5, 2016, "the Court entered a final judgment order that conclusively approved the agreement, declared it operative, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it." Scott, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 477. "The final judgment order—drafted jointly by the parties and entered at their request—specifically ordered that the Settlement Agreement . . . was effective as of that date," id. at 492, its "implementation was to begin 'no later than' the effective date, and—unlessotherwise provided—implementation was to be completed 'within 30 days of' the effective date," id. at 495. "That deadline was March 6, 2016." Id. at 502.

On March 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking "production of certain documents and data retained by Defendants and prepared, referred to, relied upon, and maintained under" § III(b)(2)(xxi). Pls.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Enforce 1-2, ECF No. 652. They argued that this provision "'essentially entitle[d]'" them both to Defendants' performance reports and to the raw "'data underlying the analysis of FCCW's performance'[] because merely requiring Defendants to produce 'unsupported, unverifiable statements'" about their progress would not help Plaintiffs advance the Settlement Agreement's specific goals. Mem. Op. of May 7, 2020, at 3 (quoting Pls.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Enforce 3-4). According to Plaintiffs, Defendants never produced these documents on a quarterly basis in the four years since the Agreement took effect, and they "generally refused" to share any information at all except on two occasions before court hearings in June 2018 and January 2020. See Pls.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Enforce 2 & n.1; Mem. Op. of May 7, 2020, at 3 (citing Pls.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Enforce 4-7). Defendants responded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to either the raw data or information about how FCCW measured its performance on each aspect of the obligations imposed by the Settlement Agreement. See Mem. Op. of May 7, 2020, at 4. Rather, those measures "need[ed] only be approved by the Compliance Monitor." Id.

On May 7, 2020, Judge Moon granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion to enforce § III(b)(2)(xxi). See id. at 1. He concluded that the "most natural reading of the Settlement Agreement lies in between what Plaintiffs [were] requesting and the position advanced by Defendants." Id. at 5. On one hand, "§ III(b)(2)(xxi) ha[d] required and continue[d] to require FCCW to track and trend its performance over time and to share such information withthe Parties through counsel on a quarterly basis" since March 2016. See id. at 7. Defendants had "not been doing this" and were "therefore in violation of the Settlement Agreement." Id. But, Judge Moon "agree[d] with Defendants that nothing in § III(b)(2)(xxi) require[d] the production of underlying raw data," as Plaintiffs requested. Id. at 8. The section's "language contemplate[d] that FCCW's performance assessment on each of its obligations imposed by the Settlement Agreement that is shared with the Parties [would] refer to and incorporate certain underlying data, such as by including aggregate statistics or other data benchmarks; and describe whether it [was] based on a focused or comprehensive medical record review." Id. Judge Moon "declined to further detail the metes and bounds" of FCCW's information-sharing obligations under § III(b)(2)(xxi), but he "encourage[d] the parties to work cooperatively to ensure (1) Plaintiffs receive[d] timely, fulsome quarterly reports," and (2) Defendants would "not be unduly burdened with requests for performance information that [were] overbroad, duplicative, or of marginal utility given other sources of data and information available to Plaintiffs." Id. at 9. He ordered the parties, before May 14, 2020, to "meet and confer regarding FCCW's future compliance with § III(2)(b)(xxi)" so they could address that issue at an upcoming status conference. Id. Finally, Defendants needed to "be prepared to share with the parties [FCCW's] first quarterly submission no later than August 1, 2020." Id.

The parties met and conferred by telephone on May 12, 2020. See Tr. of May 13, 2020 Status Conf. 35-36, ECF No. 697. During that call, Plaintiffs' counsel gave Defendants' counsel seven categories of information or documents that Plaintiffs thought fell within the scope of Judge Moon's May 7, 2020 memorandum opinion enforcing § III(b)(2)(xxi). See id. at 35-36. Defendants' counsel said they would respond as soon as they could discuss the categories with FCCW's new medical director. See id. at...