Walker v. Bd. of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, CIVIL ACTION No. 09-1316-MLB

• Decision Date: 14 July 2011
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 09-1316-MLB
• Parties: JOHN WALKER, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

JOHN WALKER, Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 09-1316-MLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Dated: July 14, 2011

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on defendants' objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Karen Humphreys' May 27, 2011, order of monetary sanctions (Doc. 100) against defendants. (Doc. 105). The objections have been fully briefed and the matter is ripe for decision. (Docs. 108, 112).¹ The objections are OVERRULED for the reasons stated herein.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 24, 2011, Judge Humphreys granted plaintiff's motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce by February 4 the complete department file for Patricia Harris, all supervision notes by Dr. Lear and any actual or proposed disciplinary actions by anyone against Patricia Harris. (Doc. 58). Defense counsel asked plaintiff's counsel to extend the deadline to February 8 and plaintiff's counsel agreed. The documents were not produced on the eighth due to illness and a snow storm. On February 9, defense counsel produced various

Page 2

documents. Those documents, however, were not fully compliant with Judge Humphrey's order. On February 10, plaintiff's counsel received documentation of complaints made about Patricia Harris via witness Sarah Harkness. The "Harkness reports" were dated January 14 and 21, 2011.² These reports were not produced by defendants. On February 11, 2011, plaintiff's counsel obtained an affidavit from "EW" who stated that she was denied medication and grief counseling by Harris and that she complained to Dr. Lear on December 10, 2010. This complaint was not produced to plaintiff. On February 16, plaintiff's counsel faxed a letter to defense counsel listing fifteen items which were not disclosed. Defense counsel then forwarded the letter to defendants.

On February 24, counsel met to discuss the items in dispute. Defense counsel stated that he had been absent due to illness and therefore, did not have an opportunity to respond to counsel's letter. Plaintiff's counsel informed defense counsel that she would file a motion for sanctions on March 1 if the discovery materials had not been produced. Plaintiff's counsel notified the court of events. On March 1, defense counsel produced 46 pages of records but was unable to address all fifteen items in dispute. Plaintiff's counsel filed the motion for sanctions with the court.

Judge Humphreys determined that there were "serious questions concerning the thoroughness of defendants' search for documents responsive to plaintiff's discovery requests" but that there was not

Page 3

sufficient evidence to conclude that Dr. Lear and Marilyn Cook have withheld documents. (Doc. 100 at 8, 9). Judge Humphreys concluded that defendants did not comply with the court's January 24 order in a timely manner and therefore, sanctions were warranted. Judge Humphreys ordered monetary sanctions due to the delays and unnecessary expenditure of resources. Defendants assert that the order of sanctions was clearly erroneous and/or contrary to law.

II. ANALYSIS

Federal...