Westefer v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 20 December 2006
• Docket Number: No. CIV. 00-162-GPM.,No. CIV. 00-708-GPM.,CIV. 00-162-GPM.,CIV. 00-708-GPM.
• Citation: 472 F.Supp.2d 1034
• Parties: Robert WESTEFER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald SNYDER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

Page 1034

472 F.Supp.2d 1034

Robert WESTEFER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald SNYDER, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV. 00-162-GPM.

No. CIV. 00-708-GPM.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.

December 20, 2006.

Alan S. Mills, Lawrence A. Wojcik, Uptown People's Law, Colleen E. McManus, DLA Piper US LLP, Paul Homer, Piper Rudnick, Chicago, IL, Richard D. Murray Jr., Kenneth D. Rose & Associates, Ltd., Anna, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Christopher L. Higgerson, Terence Corrigan, Julie Morgan, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Springfield, IL, Erik Light, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on "Plaintiffs' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Court with Disc of Information Revealed During In Camera Inspection," construed by the Court as an appeal from certain discovery rulings by United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 163). For the following reasons, the appeal is DENIED and the challenged rulings are AFFIRMED.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Robert Westefer, Mark Von Perbandt, Alejandro Villazana, Armando Tinajero, Corey Taylor, Michael Sparling, Joe Sorrentino, Anibal Santiago, Tyshawn Ross, Edward Rodriguez, Vincente Rodriguez, Vincent Reyna, Alex Muller, William Lasley, Ted Knox, Michael Johnson, Eugene Horton, George Harper, Timothy Hall, John Gill, Larry Gambrell, Larry Foutch, Robert Felton, Kennard Combs, Maurice Coleman, Laverne Clayton, Gary Clark, Mary Chapman, as the administrator of the estate of Marcus Chapman, Roosevelt Burrell, Finner Bryant, Larry Brown, and Aryules Bivens are past or present inmates of the closed maximum security unit at the Tamms Correctional Center ("Tamms") in Tamms, Illinois. Defendants Donald Snyder, Odie Washington, Michael V. Neal, George DeTella, Michael O'Leary, Dwayne Clark, Jerry Gilmore, Lamark Carter, Rodney Ahitow, Roger Cowan, Thomas Page, Roger Walker, Salvador Godinez, Guy Pierce, Barbara Hurt, Rick Orr, Ronald Meek, Jason Garnett, Deirdre Battaglia, Eddie Jones, Don Hulick, and Roger Zimmerman are past or present officers and employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging their confinement at Tamms. Specifically, Plaintiffs Bivens, Burrell, Chapman, Clayton, Combs, Felton, Harper, Horton, Knox, Lasley, Rodriguez, Rodriguez, Santiago, Sorrentino, Sparling, Taylor, and Von Perbandt allege that they were transferred to Tamms in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment right to file grievances and lawsuits about the conditions of their confinement. All Plaintiffs allege that they have a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in avoiding transfer to Tamms and that IDOC employs inadequate procedures to protect that interest. IDOC contends that Plaintiffs Bivens, Brown, Bryant, Clark, Coleman, Foutch, Gambrell, Gill, Hall, Horton, Johnson, Knox, Lasley, Muller, Reyna, Edward Rodriguez, Ross, Sorrentino, Sparling, Tinajero, Villazana, Westefer, and Von Perbandt have been assigned to Tamms because they are members of "security threat groups," which is to say, prison gangs.

Plaintiffs have requested in support of their retaliation and procedural due process claims that IDOC disclose to them documents supporting the designation of Plaintiffs as prison gang members in the "transfer packets" that accompanied their assignment to Tamms and any reports by IDOC identifying the alleged leaders of prison gangs from 2000 through the present. IDOC in turn has invoked the so-called "law enforcement investigatory privilege," contending that production of the requested documents would jeopardize prison security. By order entered July 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson directed IDOC to produce the requested documents together with any documents that support IDOC's contention that turning over the requested discovery could constitute a security breach, for an in camera inspection. By order entered November 2, 2006, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson modified his prior order to permit the in camera inspection to proceed by way of a demonstration by Mike Atchison, Deputy Commander of Intelligence for IDOC, of the operation of a database on which IDOC stores intelligence regarding prison gangs. On November 6, 2006, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson directed Atchison to appear on November 16, 2006, to perform an in camera electronic demonstration of IDOC's gang intelligence database; he further ordered that counsel for none of the parties to the case would be present at the in camera demonstration.

On November 13, 2006, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson denied a request by counsel for Plaintiffs for a summary of the documents and other data presented at the in camera inspection and for an electronic copy of such documents and data. On November 22, 2006, counsel for Plaintiffs filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's order denying their request for a summary of the data presented at the in camera inspection and an electronic copy of that data. The Court construed the objection as an appeal from Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's order entered November 13, 2006, and directed IDOC to file a response on or before December 7, 2006. IDOC having filed its response, the Court now is prepared to rule.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, "a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Further, "[a] judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id. Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, "A magistrate judge to whom a pretrial matter not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party is referred to hear and determine shall promptly conduct such proceedings as are required and when appropriate enter into the record a written order setting forth the disposition of the matter." FED. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall ... modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id.

In general, discovery orders are nondispositive within the meaning of Rule 72(a). See Adkins v. Mid-American Growers, Inc., 143 F.R.D. 171, 175 n. 3 (N.D.Ill.1992); Johnson v. Old World Craftsmen, Ltd., 638 F.Supp. 289, 291 (N.D.Ill.1986). Accord Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir.1990). The clearly erroneous standard of review means that "the district court can overturn the magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997). See also Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)) ("[A] finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."); In re Love, 957 F.2d 1350, 1354 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 839 F.2d 302, 309 (7th Cir.1988)) ("[R]eversal under the clearly erroneous standard is only warranted if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'"); SK-Palladin Partners, L.P. v. Platinum Entertainment, Inc., No. 01 C 7202, 2001 WL 1593154, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 13, 2001) (quoting Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504) ("A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."). "Ordinarily, under clearly erroneous review, if there are two permissible views, the reviewing court should not overturn the decision solely because it would have chosen the other view." Burns v. American United Life Ins. Co., No. 05-CV-0466-DRH, 2006 WL 1004884, at *1 (S.D.Ill. Apr. 17, 2006) (quoting American Motors Corp. v. Great Am. Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 87 C 2496, 1988 WL 2788, at *1 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 8, 1988)). See also Smith-Kline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., No. 98 C 3952, 2000 WL 1310669, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 13, 2000).

Naturally, in ruling on discovery matters Magistrate Judge Wilkerson is operating in a zone of very broad discretion. See Weeks, 126 F.3d at 943 ("District courts enjoy extremely broad discretion in controlling discovery."); Dole v. Local 1942 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir.1989) ("District courts have broad discretion in matters relating to discovery."); Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 775 F.2d 177, 183 (7th Cir.1985)(quoting United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375, 1382 (D.C.Cir.1984)) (noting that trial judges have "wide discretion with respect to discovery matters"; moreover, "a trial court's `discovery rulings are reversed only on a clear showing of abuse, and ... it is unusual to find abuse of discretion in these matters.'"); Brown-Bey v. United States, 720 F.2d 467, 470 (7th Cir.1983) ("A district court has wide discretion with respect to discovery matters."); Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union No. 130, U.A., 657 F.2d...