*1 Before the Court is plaintiff's 18th Motion to Compel Monell Discovery from Defendant Wellpath, LLC (“Wellpath”). Dkt. 410. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background[1]

On November 8, 2018, decedent Marcus Mays died of a seizure while detained at the Will County Jail. Plaintiff Amber Hirsch, as administrator of the estate of decedent Marcus Mays, subsequently initiated this action against Will County, the Will County Sheriff, several Will County employees and officers, Wellpath, and several Wellpath employees. As this Court stated previously, “Plaintiff's effort to obtain discovery from Wellpath has resulted in a protracted, energy draining battle that, in turn, has spawned voluminous motion practice.” Dkt. 376 at 2.

Plaintiff issued her Monell Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”) and her Fifth Set of Production Requests (“RFPs”) to Wellpath on October 4, 2023. Dkt. 410 at 1. Wellpath did not respond by the November 3, 2023 deadline and filed a motion for extension of time. Dkt. 388. Wellpath's motion was granted in part, and this Court ordered Wellpath to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests by November 15, 2023. Dkt. 391. The parties met and conferred on November 17, 2023 regarding Wellpath's responses, but did not resolve their disputes. Dkt. 391 at 1-2. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 4, 2023. A motion hearing was held on December 15, 2023, where the Court heard argument on several issues raised in plaintiff's motion. The Court informed the parties it would issue an order containing rulings on certain discovery requests, while directing the parties to meet and confer on the remaining requests.

II. Legal Standard

Rule 26 provides that the “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see Motorola Sols., Inc. v. Hytera Commc'ns Corp., 365 F.Supp.3d 916, 924 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (“Relevance focuses on the claims and defenses in the case, not its general subject matter”). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

A party may compel discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 whenever another party fails to respond to a discovery request, or when its response is insufficient. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “The objecting party carries the burden of showing why a particular discovery request is improper.” LKQ Corp. v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., No. 21 C 3166, 2023 WL 3455315, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2023). “The burden is not satisfied by a reflexive invocation of the same baseless, often abused litany that the requested discovery is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, or that it is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Osada v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 290 F.R.D. 485, 494 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (quoting Burkybile v. Mitsubishi Motors, Corp., No. 04–C–4932, 2006 WL 2325506, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2006)).

*2 Courts have broad discretion in resolving such discovery disputes and do so by adopting a liberal interpretation of the discovery rules. Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1996); Chi. Reg. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Celtic Floor Covering, Inc., 316 F.Supp.3d 1044, 1046 (N.D. Ill. 2018).

III. Analysis

A. Scope of Relevancy

Prior to evaluating plaintiff's various discovery requests, the Court must establish the bounds of relevancy. To succeed on her Monell claim, plaintiff must prove “a widespread common practice that by virtue of its ubiquity constitutes a de facto custom” that caused the deprivation of Mr. Mays’ constitutional rights—in this case, the deliberate indifference to his medical needs. La Porta v. City of Chicago, 277 F.Supp.3d 969, 981 (N.D. Ill. 2017). Plaintiff contends the deliberate indifference Mr. Mays suffered was the result of a wide range of Wellpath's deficient practices. Plaintiff alleges Wellpath staff learned of Mr. Mays’ history of grand mal seizures and prescriptions for anti-seizure medication during his intake at the Will County Jail, yet (1) failed to provide him with anti-seizure medication; (2) failed to provide him with a doctor's appointment; and (3) failed to monitor him, ultimately leading to his death from a grand mal seizure. See Dkt. 230 at ¶¶ 25-44. However, this medical care, or lack thereof, does not invoke every Wellpath medical policy and practice. Rather, the relevant policies, procedures, and practices are those related to Wellpath's intake admissions, treatment, and monitoring of detainees with chronic health conditions. With this framework in mind, the Court will address plaintiff's discovery requests in turn.

B. Interrogatory Nos. 1, 11, 20

Interrogatory No. 1 asks Wellpath to “identify any and all policymakers responsible for the policies, practices, procedures, and training materials employed by [Wellpath] at the Will County Jail between November 7, 2013, and November 9, 2018, including all policymakers with final or delegated policymaking authority.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 4. Interrogatory No. 11 asks Wellpath to “describe with particularity the structure of Wellpath, LLC,” and “the management reporting structure of Wellpath, LLC.” Id. at 9. Wellpath objects to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 11 as vague, overbroad, and disproportionate. These objections are unfounded. Plaintiff asserts that Wellpath's deliberate indifference led to the violation of Mr. Mays’ constitutional rights and eventually his death. To prove this claim, Plaintiff will need to demonstrate this deliberate indifference “is derived from [Wellpath's] failure to act in the face of ‘actual or constructive notice’ that such a failure is likely to result in constitutional deprivations.” Robles v. City of Fort Wayne, 113 F.3d 732, 735 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Cornfield v. Consolidated High School Dist. No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316, 1327 (7th Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to discover the identities of Wellpath policymakers so that she may question them and discern if they had actual or constructive notice of Wellpath's allegedly deficient practices and failed to act. Further, as discussed during the motion hearing, the organizational structure of Wellpath is relevant. Wellpath must produce information revealing the organizational hierarchy of Wellpath, including those individuals responsible for creating and implementing the policies and practices at the Will County Jail between November 7, 2013 and November 9, 2018.

*3 Interrogatory No. 20 asks Wellpath to list each detention facility where it is currently providing care and any additional facilities where Wellpath “had an active contract to provide medical care in October 2018, but for which Wellpath no longer has a contract.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 12. The current facilities in which Wellpath operates is not relevant. However, the facilities where Wellpath operated as of October 2018 is relevant, as that is when the events of this case occurred. Wellpath must produce this information to plaintiff, as this will aid the parties in crafting proportionate geographic limitations to several of plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff's request for information regarding contracts cancelled since October 2018 is granted in part. Wellpath must produce evidence of cancelled contracts to the extent those cancellations were due to instances of deficient medical care that took place between November 2013 to November 2018. The parties must meet and confer regarding the appropriate geographic scope for Interrogatory No. 20.

C. Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, 12; RFP No. 5

Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, 12, and RFP No. 5 relate to plaintiff's claim that Wellpath “maintains a widespread de facto policy of failing to supervise, train, investigate, and/or discipline employees.” Dkt. 230 at ¶ 109(7). Interrogatory No. 3 asks Wellpath to identify any employees that were “suspended or terminated for violating a [Wellpath] policy relating to patient medical care between November 7, 2008, to November 9, 2018.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 5. Wellpath's objection on duplicative grounds is misplaced. Plaintiff previously requested any findings that Wellpath employees violated policies in relation to the death of a detainee; however, Interrogatory No. 3 is not limited to employee violations relating to the death of a detainee. Pursuant to the scope of relevancy discussed above, Wellpath must respond to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent the employee was suspended or terminated for violation of a policy regarding Wellpath's intake admissions, treatment, or monitoring of detainees with chronic health conditions. To maintain proportionality, Wellpath need only identify those employees suspended or terminated between November 7, 2013, and November 9, 2018. The parties must meet and confer regarding the appropriate geographic scope for Interrogatory No. 3.

Interrogatory No. 5 asks Wellpath to identify any employee that has been “disciplined as a result of the death of a detainee.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 6. Plaintiff has since limited the temporal scope of this interrogatory to November 7, 2008, to November 9, 2018.[2] Dkt. 410 at 5. At the motion hearing, Wellpath stated it does not believe it has any systems in place that track employee discipline, and that it would be overly burdensome to search for such documentation. However, discipline meted out in response to employee violations related to detainee deaths is relevant to this case, and Wellpath must respond. As plaintiff notes, a parties’ failure to maintain a proper recordkeeping system “does not excuse it from producing relevant documents.” Batchelor v. City of Chicago, No. 18 CV 8513, 2020 WL 13647794, at *9 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 17, 2020). Wellpath further claims this interrogatory is duplicative of plaintiff's previous request to produce “any findings by any person or agency that a current or former [Wellpath] agent or employee violated any ... policy in relation to the death of a detainee.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 6-7. Plaintiff claims that in response to this previous request, Wellpath only “produced a declaration identifying the number of detainee deaths in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.” Id. at 5. This response is insufficient. The Court finds the 10-year scope of Interrogatory No. 5 appropriate given the lower incidence of detainee deaths and their relevance to this case. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the appropriate geographic scope for Interrogatory No. 5.

*4 Interrogatory No. 6 seeks information regarding Wellpath's discipline of “any employee for misplacing or discarding detainee medical requests or sick call forms.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 7. Interrogatory No. 12 seeks information regarding Wellpath's discipline of any employee “for relabeling pill bottles or for ‘pre-signing’ the Nursing Verification logbook ....” Id. at 10. At the motion hearing, plaintiff conceded that this conduct did not take place in the instant case. Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 12 are therefore not relevant, and Wellpath need not respond.

RFP No. 5 asks for “[d]ocuments evidencing the total number of [Wellpath] employees disciplined and the discipline imposed for conduct between November 7, 2008 and November 9, 2018 that relate to patient care.” Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 4. Discipline imposed for conduct related to patient care is relevant to this case, but only to the extent that discipline concerned conduct during the intake process or treatment provided to a detainee with a chronic health condition, including seizures. Wellpath must produce complaints made between November 7, 2013, and November 9, 2018. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the appropriate geographic scope for RFP No. 5.

D. Interrogatory No. 4

Interrogatory No. 4 asks Wellpath to identify “all persons who died as a result of a medical condition ... between November 8, 2008 and November 8, 2018 while being detained in any facility where [Wellpath] provided medical care.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 5-6. Wellpath objects, claiming this interrogatory is “vague as to medical condition,” and disproportionate to the needs of the case. The term “medical condition” is not vague; Wellpath should be able to discern which detainee deaths were caused by physiological medical conditions as opposed to, e.g., violence or suicide. Given that there will be more limited incidences of detainee deaths due to medical conditions, the proposed 10-year period is appropriate. Notwithstanding these objections, Wellpath directs plaintiff to the Declaration of Chase Fisher. Id. at 6. However, this declaration is not responsive, as it only provides the number of detainee deaths that occurred between November 2009 and November 2018 in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Dkt. 410, Ex. C at ¶ 3. Further, the declaration explicitly notes that this number is not limited as to the cause of death. Id. As such, Wellpath must respond to Interrogatory No. 4. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the appropriate geographic scope for Interrogatory No. 4.

E. Interrogatory Nos. 14, 15; RFP Nos. 6, 8, 9.

Interrogatory No. 14 asks Wellpath to identify “all [Wellpath] and Will County personnel who were provided notice of and/or any copies of Carla Cesario's 2017 and 2018 audits at the Will County Adult Detention Facility” and to describe “what [Wellpath] did to address the deficiencies identified in these audits.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 10. RFP No. 6 seeks “all communications from 2016-2020 sent or received by any [Wellpath] employee or agent regarding Carla Cesario and/or her audits at the Will County Adult Detention Facility.” Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 4. At the motion hearing, Wellpath objected only on grounds of undue burden. As discussed during the hearing, the Court finds these requests narrowly tailored and Wellpath must respond.

Interrogatory No. 15 asks Wellpath to “[d]escribe each and every system, process, or procedure that [Wellpath] maintained between November 2008 and November 2018 to track complaints about its employees’ policy or rule violations and any disciplinary actions taken as a result of those violations.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 11. Wellpath objects, asserting this interrogatory is unduly burdensome, overly broad, and disproportionate. To maintain proportionality with the needs of the case, Wellpath must respond with respect to processes or procedures maintained between November 7, 2013, and November 9, 2018.

*5 RFP No. 8 seeks “all communications sent or received by any [Wellpath] employee or agent regarding the [National Commission on Correctional Health Care's (“NCCHC”)] finding that [Wellpath] was not in compliance with the NCCHC's Essential Standard for Chronic Care following the March 2016 audit” at the Will County Jail. Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 5. Wellpath claims this RFP is not relevant, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. The relevance of this RFP is clear: the NCCHC “found that Wellpath was not in compliance with its ‘essential standard’ regarding chronic care. Chronic care covers conditions such as seizure disorders ....” Dkt. 410 at 10. In other words, the NCCHC found Wellpath to be out of compliance in treating chronic health conditions at the Will County Jail—the same type of condition from which Mr. Mays died, at the very same jail where he died. Plaintiff's access to Wellpath's communications regarding this finding is directly related to their need to prove Wellpath policymakers had actual or constructive notice of inadequate medical care. Further, Wellpath does not explain how this RFP is overly broad or unduly burdensome. Therefore, Wellpath must respond and produce all communications involving the NCCHC's finding.

RFP No. 9 asks Wellpath to produce the “report(s) submitted to [the] NCCHC for purposes of documenting compliance with the NCCHC's Essential Standard for Chronic Care following the March 2016 audit.” Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 5. At the motion hearing, Wellpath stated that it indeed submitted that report, but was unable to locate it. If Wellpath did not maintain this report and has been unable to locate it after reasonable inquiry, it must produce a certification to that effect.

F. Interrogatory No. 19; RFP Nos. 13, 14

Interrogatory No. 19 and RFP Nos. 13 and 14 relate to plaintiff's allegation that Wellpath has maintained a widespread, de facto policy of failing to train its employees. Interrogatory No. 19 asks Wellpath if it has “provided any training to Will County correctional officers regarding the recognition of symptoms related to seizure disorders” and if so, to provide further information about the training. Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 12. Wellpath argues that this interrogatory is duplicative, vague, overly broad, and disproportionate. Wellpath also claims it has already produced several written policies related to (1) “processing, screening, and monitoring arrestees in detention facilities;” (2) “arrestees suffering from serious injuries and/or illnesses;” (3) “arrestees requiring immediate medical attention;” and (4) “deceased arrestees.” Id. However, Interrogatory No. 19 asks for more than just written policies. It asks if Will County correctional officers were trained—pursuant to those policies—to recognize symptoms of seizure disorders, and for further specifics such as “the date the training was provided, who provided the training, and the names of the correctional officers trained.” Id. Plaintiff claims that “Will County correctional officer witnesses have testified that they do not recall receiving any training from Wellpath,” Dkt. 410 at 11, and she now seeks discovery corroborating or rebutting that testimony. Plaintiff's request is narrowly tailored, asking only if Will County correctional officers have been trained. Wellpath must respond to Interrogatory No. 19 and the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding its temporal scope.

RFP No. 13 asks for “[d]ocuments evidencing all trainings completed by the Individual Defendants from November 8, 2013 to November 8, 2018.” Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 6. RFP No. 14 asks for “all documents related to any training provided to [Wellpath] employees or agents between 2013 and 2018 regarding identifying serious medical needs, including seizure disorders, and referring patients to the appropriate level of care.” Id. at 7. RFP No. 13—which seeks all trainings completed by the Individual Defendants—is overbroad considering the Court's discussion on the bounds of relevancy above. Instead, Wellpath shall produce documents evidencing only those trainings completed by the Individual Defendants between 2013 and 2018 that involved identifying serious medical needs and referring patients to an appropriate level of care. RFP No. 14, which concerns only trainings identifying serious medical needs and referring patients to appropriate levels of care, is narrowly tailored and within the bounds of relevancy. Wellpath must produce those documents.

G. Interrogatory No. 13; RFP No. 3

*6 Interrogatory No. 13 asks for “all lawsuits filed from November 8, 2008 to November 8, 2018 against [Wellpath] or any employee of [Wellpath], which related in any way to medical care inside a detention facility.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 10. RFP No. 3 asks for “all settlement agreements, or other documents showing the amount of settlements or judgments in any lawsuit filed by or on behalf or any detainee alleging claims relating to medical treatment, or lack thereof, in facilities at which [Wellpath] was providing medical care.” Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks this information to prove “Wellpath's policymakers were on notice” that Wellpath was “ignoring the serious medical needs of detainees.” Dkt. 410 at 12.

The Court finds these discovery requests overly broad. “A lawsuit is an allegation. So pointing to other lawsuits simply establishes that other people have made accusations against [Defendant].” Arquero v. Dart, 587 F.Supp.3d 721, 730 (N.D. Ill. 2022). The existence of a lawsuit demonstrates only that Wellpath policymakers were on notice that inmates had leveled accusations of inadequate medical care. Settlement agreements are similarly insufficient to prove notice, as they often contain explicit disclaimers of liability. Interrogatory No. 13 and RFP No. 3 will be limited to lawsuits between 2013 and 2018 alleging inadequate medical care in which judgment was entered against Wellpath. Such cases are appropriately tailored to demonstrate Wellpath policymakers were on notice of constitutional issues with Wellpath's medical care.

H. RFP Nos. 4, 10

RFP No. 4 asks for “[d]ocuments evidencing the total number of complaints between November 7, 2008 and November 9, 2018 alleging failures to provide adequate medical care by [Wellpath] or its employees.” Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 4. Plaintiff claims she requires this documentation to show the existence of multiple constitutional violations so she may succeed on her Monell claim. Plaintiff is correct; other complaints of inadequate medical care are relevant to this case, as plaintiff is entitled to show a “series of violations to lay the premise of deliberate indifference.” Thomas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 604 F.3d 293, 303 (7th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Watkins v. City of Chicago, No. 19-cv-06615, 2022 WL 1045703, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2022) (dismissing a Monell deliberate indifference claim where plaintiff did not provide “examples of other similarly situated individuals that experienced a comparable pattern of tortious behavior”); Howell v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 987 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2021) (“[T]here can be little doubt that a practice or custom theory will be more persuasive if a plaintiff can show that the defendant ... company treated other, similarly situated patients in similar unconstitutional ways.”). Wellpath must produce complaints pursuant to RFP No. 5, but only those complaints alleging failure to provide adequate medical care to detainees with chronic health conditions, including seizures, or alleging deficiencies in the intake process. Wellpath must produce complaints made between November 7, 2013, and November 9, 2018. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the appropriate geographic scope for RFP No. 4.

RFP No. 10 asks for “[d]ocuments relating to every complaint or internal investigation from November 8, 2008 to November 8, 2018 at the Will County Jail regarding complaints that requests for medical attention ... were not addressed in a timely manner, or were improperly discarded.” Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 5-6. Plaintiff makes no allegations that Mr. Mays made a request for medical attention that was ignored. As such, RFP No. 10 is not relevant and Wellpath need not respond.

I. Interrogatory No. 16; RFP No. 7

*7 Interrogatory No. 16 and RFP No. 7 relate to plaintiff's claim that Wellpath maintained a widespread policy of failing to maintain appropriate staff levels, and thus failed to ensure that Mr. Mays received adequate medical care. Specifically, plaintiff claims the existence of low staff levels “may provide evidence relevant to the deficiencies in Mays’ intake.” Dkt. 410 at 15. Interrogatory No. 16 asks if Wellpath was “fully staffed (i.e. all positions filled and no one absent) at the Will County Jail on October 28, 2018 and October 29, 2018.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 11. Wellpath argues this interrogatory seeks irrelevant information. However, Interrogatory No. 16 is indeed relevant, as low staffing levels may have contributed to the alleged oversights in Mr. Mays’ intake. This interrogatory is also narrowly tailored, as it seeks staffing levels for just the two days surrounding Mr. Mays’ intake. Wellpath's answer that “if there were open positions, PRN's or OT were utilized” and that “[p]ositions generally were not left unfilled” is unresponsive, as it is an assumption that plaintiff need not accept. Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 11. Wellpath must respond to Interrogatory No. 16.

RFP No. 7 seeks “all documents or communications sent or received between 2016 and 2020 by any [Wellpath] employee or agent regarding staff turnover or retention at the Will County Adult Detention Facility.” Dkt 410, Ex. B at 5. Plaintiff claims she requires this information to further prove the existence of inadequate staffing levels and Wellpath's notice of those inadequate levels. Wellpath objects that RFP No. 7 is not relevant, overly broad, and disproportionate. Plaintiff's request is relevant, particularly in proving that Wellpath policymakers were on notice of staffing deficiencies at the Will County Jail. Plaintiff's time frame, however, is too broad, as it seeks communications through 2020, which postdates Mr. Mays’ death. Wellpath must produce all communications regarding staff turnover or retention for only the years 2016 to 2018.

J. Interrogatory No. 18

Interrogatory No. 18 asks Wellpath to “[d]escribe the system or process that [Wellpath] maintained between October 28, 2018 and November 8, 2018 to notify Will County deputies about a detainee's potentially life threatening medical condition and what symptoms to watch out for,” and if no such system was in place, to explain why. Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 12. Wellpath objects, stating the interrogatory is vague and “seeks information better suited for a deposition.”[3] Id. To counter, plaintiff claims she has “asked this question at depositions and received various answers” and is “entitled to an answer from the corporate entity itself.” Dkt. 410 at 16. The Court agrees. To the extent the term “potentially life-threatening medical conditions” is vague, the Court interprets it to mean chronic health conditions such as epilepsy. Wellpath is directed to answer this interrogatory and describe the systems and processes existing during Mr. Mays’ incarceration that served to inform Will County deputies of inmates with chronic health conditions.

K. Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 9

Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, and 9 request information regarding Wellpath's financial condition, as plaintiff seeks punitive damages. As stated during the motion hearing, plaintiff is entitled to Wellpath's financial information. Wellpath must produce records establishing its assets and liabilities for the past two years. See Breuder v. Bd. of Trs. Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 502, No. 15 CV 9323, 2021 WL 229655, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2021) (finding only “current assets and liabilities” are relevant to punitive damages, and ruling that defendants only needed to provide financial information for the past two years); see also Platcherr v. Health Pros., Ltd., 04 CV 1442, 2007 WL 2772855, at * 3 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2007) (finding three years of documents too broad). The parties are directed to meet and confer to negotiate which financial records Wellpath must produce.

L. Wellpath mandatory staff meeting sign-in sheets from Will County Jail

*8 Pursuant to a previous order, Wellpath “produced monthly meeting minutes from mandatory staff meetings at the Will County [J]ail from 2014 to 2019.” Dkt. 410 at 17-18. However, “Plaintiff is missing the sign-in sheets for every single meeting in 2018, the year that [Mr.] Mays died.” Id. at 18. Plaintiff claims Wellpath agreed to investigate the missing sign-in sheets but has yet to produce them. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding these missing sign-in sheets. If Wellpath is unable to locate them after reasonable inquiry, it must produce a certification to that effect.

M. Interrogatory No. 10; RFP Nos. 1, 2

Plaintiff claims that “Wellpath allowed ESI evidence to be destroyed despite being aware that [Mr.] Mays died ... at one if its facilities in November 2018 and despite Plaintiff's counsel's delivery of a notice to preserve in July 2019.” Dkt. 410 at 14. Interrogatory No. 10 and RFP Nos. 1 and 2 seek further information regarding this spoliation allegation. Interrogatory No. 10 asks whether “any of the emails of [Wellpath] employees who worked in the Will County jail in 2018 [were] purged as a result of Wellpath's 2019 email retention policy” and to “provide the names of the [Wellpath] employees whose mailboxes were purged, on what dates, and how much data was purged from each employees’ email box.” Dkt. 410, Ex. A at 9. Wellpath objects to this interrogatory, claiming it is duplicative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate. RFP No. 1 seeks “[a]ny and all documents, screenshots, or data compilations in existence or which can be created which show how much data was purged and when” from the mailboxes of certain Wellpath employees. Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 2-3. Wellpath objects, asserting this RFP is not relevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and duplicative. Lastly, RFP No. 2 requests “[a]ny and all documents or screenshots relating to ... Wellpath's Claim's Department opening of a claim related to the death of Marcus Mays.” Dkt. 410, Ex. B at 3. Wellpath again objects, stating the information sought is privileged and not relevant.

The issue of spoliation has a history in this case. On February 28, 2023, plaintiff filed before the District Judge a motion for sanctions based on claims of potential spoliation. Dkt. 284. The District Judge referred that motion to the Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. Dkt. 286. However, on September 25, 2023, plaintiff withdrew her motion without prejudice with leave to re-file. Dkt. 363. Interrogatory No. 10 and RFP Nos. 1 and 2 seek information related to plaintiff's spoliation allegations and thus constitutes “discovery on discovery,” which is not appropriate for this stage of the litigation. See LKQ Corp. v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., No. 21 C 3166, 2023 WL 4365899, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2023) (finding “discovery about the process by which a party searches for, reviews, and collects documents is not discovery relevant to a claim or defense” and thus inappropriate during fact discovery). Accordingly, and as stated in the motion hearing, the Court declines to substantively address these discovery requests at this time and Wellpath need not respond. If plaintiff refiles her motion for sanctions after the close of fact discovery, the Court will revisit this dispute.

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's 18th motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Regarding those discovery requests for which the Court has compelled Wellpath's response, Wellpath must immediately begin production on a rolling basis. Regarding those discovery requests for which the Court directed the parties to meet and confer, the parties must do so by March 1, 2024. By March 15, 2024, the parties shall file a joint status report confirming Wellpath's compliance with this order, and setting forth: (1) the discovery that has been completed from the date of this order; (2) the discovery that remains, including the number of and schedule for depositions; (3) an agreed-upon and reasonable proposal for the close of fact discovery; and (4) any disputes that require the Court's attention.

*9 So Ordered.