*1 TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Dear Counsel:

This matter was referred to me for discovery on December 16, 2016, see Docket entry December 16, 2016. The case is now proceeding on Plaintiff's Monell claims against Wexford. On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories. Defendant responded (ECF 477-26) and Plaintiff replied (477-28). The motion has been properly briefed and there is no need for a hearing. Local Rule 105.7.

Plaintiff begins her argument by setting forth the standards of proof for Monell claims. Plaintiff argues that each method of proof requires substantial evidence. ECF 477-2. The Court does not dispute that argument, but Plaintiff goes astray in arguing that she is entitled to more than what Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 proscribes and more than what Appendix A, Guideline A of the Local Rules dictates. Id. at p.7-9. With docket entries fast approaching the “500” mark, it is clear this litigation has been aggressively pursued and vigorously defended. Over 100 hours of depositions have been conducted by Plaintiff. The parties have exchanged over 35, 000 documents. The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's argument that a Monell claim entitles her to relief beyond Rule 26 and particularly the inference that courts must permit her the relief of such broad discovery. ECF 477-2, p. 7.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) governing the scope and limits of discovery provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” Fed. R. Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 requires that discovery be relevant to any party's claim or defense, proportional to what is at issue in a case; and not excessively burdensome or expensive as compared to the likely benefit of obtaining the discovery being sought”. Local Rule Discovery Guidelines Appendix A.

First Plaintiff argues Wexford failed to preserve nearly all the discovery Plaintiff has sought. ECF 477-2, p.13. Wexford in response states that the documents of which Plaintiff complains were and possibly still are within the control of the State of Maryland. Once the Wexford contract ended in 2018, Wexford lost access to those documents. Plaintiff does not dispute that fact. ECF 477-2 at p. 24. The Court agrees with Wexford that Wexford is not the party in control of the documents. Goodman v. Praxair Services, 632 F.Supp. 2d 494 (D.Md. 2009). However, Wexford did admit to having retained some of those documents from the State of Maryland's Sharepoint server. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Wexford to ensure that all documents from the Sharepoint server that are in Wexford's possession and are responsive to Plaintiff's request consistent with the limits set by this Letter Order are turned over to Plaintiff. There is no need to replicate what has already been provided.

*2 In essence, Plaintiff has requested information that is far outside of the scope of discovery and is far beyond being proportional to the remaining claims in her litigation. I agree with Defendant in that there are two basic areas of complaint – the timeframe relevant to the documents and interrogatory responses and the content of whether the information requested is for emergency medical care (relevant to this claim) or other medical care (beyond the scope of discovery and therefore not relevant). This is a claim about emergency care and the failure of Defendant to provide emergency care to Ms. Neal. This is not a case about policies and procedures regarding other medical care. This case is clearly limited to the decision to provide emergent care to Fatima Neal.

The death of Fatima Neal occurred on November 4, 2012. Wexford began providing emergency care to inmates at the detention center on July 1, 2012. Prior to that date, Wexford provided utilization management services to the State of Maryland and did not make decisions regarding emergency medical care. These facts are not in dispute. The Court recognizes that utilization management could have some crossover into the deployment of emergent medical care, but it is not disputed that Wexford did not play the role of decision maker prior to July 1, 2012, four months prior to Ms. Neal's death. Plaintiff has asked for information dating back to 2006 or more. Defendant Wexford has offered to limit the time frame to 2010 through 2014. While Wexford may not have raised a burdensome argument, it matters little – the requests are not proportional to the remaining Monell claims. In opposition, Wexford states that it has already produced “every known policy/procedure/guideline that was in place from 2005-2018”. ECF 477-26, p. 20. The Court agrees with Wexford that the time period should include 2010 through 2014, the relevant period for discovery. The Court also accepts that Wexford has provided documentation beyond that period as claimed.

With respect to Plaintiff's complaint regarding the providing of ESI, Wexford has engaged a vendor to conduct a preliminary estimate regarding the costs and time involved in conducting a search of the terms requested. ECF 477-26, p. 22-23. The Court will defer any decisions regarding the motion to compel ESI until that information becomes available to Wexford. Defendant is to act promptly to complete any estimate. The Court will not look favorably upon any delay in Defendant's response.

Also, as to the argument by Wexford that the motion to compel is untimely, the Court finds that argument unpersuasive. The parties have had ongoing discussions and have been engaged in efforts to resolve the disputes without need of court intervention which is always encouraged. Wexford was also providing discovery on a rolling basis and the ESI issue above is evidence of the ongoing nature of the discovery between the parties.

District courts exercise broad discretion over discovery issues. Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States, 842 F.3d 853, 860 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 402–03 (4th Cir. 2003)). This case has been litigated for over four years. The parties are directed to complete the remaining discovery consistent with this Court's Order, ECF 479.

Therefore, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with this Court's Order.

Defendant Wexford is ORDERED to provide any information in their possession from the Sharepoint server consistent with this Letter Order;

The remaining information to be provided is limited to the time period and the subject matter consistent with this Letter Order;

The Court has deferred any decision regarding the production of ESI until notified by the parties that court intervention is necessary.

*3 Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the Court and will be docketed accordingly.