Bakambia v. Hart

Background

Marc Amouri Bakambia, who is incarcerated at the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ Minnesota Correctional Facility–Lino Lakes, sued Alexandria Hart, Christine Oberembt, and Corrections Officer Michael Oliveras. The opinion states that Hart and Oberembt are accused of deliberately disregarding his medical needs by delaying a neurologist appointment, and that Oliveras is accused of denying him access to prescription migraine medication and hiding that medication. All three defendants are Department of Corrections employees.

The court considered Bakambia’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery Disclosures and Third Motion to Compel Discovery Disclosures. A motion to compel asks the court to require an opposing party to provide requested information or documents. The second motion concerned several document requests and interrogatories; the third motion concerned Request for Production 25.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery must first show that the request is relevant. The responding party must then specifically explain why the request is irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive. The court also stated that it generally must accept a party’s representation that it produced all discoverable materials unless the requesting party provides specific evidence that additional responsive materials exist.

Second motion

The court ruled on the following requests and interrogatories:

- Request for Production 18: The court denied the motion as to this request because it had already ordered the defendants, in addressing an earlier motion, to search for the documents and either produce them or state clearly that none were found. - Request for Production 19: The court denied the motion. The defendants produced a notice stating that a January 7, 2022 appointment was canceled because the clinic canceled the appointment without notifying the facility. The court held that the document responded to the request, even if Bakambia believed it was inaccurate or incomplete. The court would not resolve that factual dispute through a discovery motion. - Request for Production 21: The court granted the motion in part. The defendants had produced medical records and a cancellation notice, but those materials did not show whether Oberembt requested records from Centurion after alleged delays in scheduling Bakambia’s neurologist appointments. The defendants were ordered to diligently search for and produce records concerning Oberembt’s requests related to appointments requested on June 21, 2023, and March 21, 2024, and an appointment scheduled for January 7, 2022. If no such records existed, the defendants had to provide a statement attesting to that conclusion. - Interrogatory 12: The court granted the motion because the defendants’ answer addressed only one part of a multipart question. The defendants were ordered to state whether, on June 13, 2024, staff activated an incident command system concerning Bakambia’s worsening migraine, escorted him to health services, sent a nurse to retrieve his migraine medication, and took several hours to find it. If they lacked an adequate basis to answer some or all of those questions, they could say so. - Interrogatory 22: The court denied the motion. The defendants answered the portions they could address and said Oberembt did not recall the specific conversation at issue. The court held that this was not a basis to require a different answer. - Interrogatory 24: The court denied the motion. The defendants disputed Bakambia’s factual allegation that staff removed his migraine medication from his property and provided a general answer about property procedures. The court held that it could not use a discovery motion to decide whether those answers were true or false. - Interrogatory 25: The court denied the motion. The interrogatory required the defendants to assume that Bakambia’s allegations about missed or delayed appointments were true and then evaluate those events. The defendants instead disputed the factual premise and provided information about later appointments. The court held that this response was adequate.

Third motion

The Third Motion concerned Request for Production 25, which sought transportation authorization forms, papers signed when Bakambia left and returned to the facility, and a document approving his transportation to a neurology clinic on January 7, 2022. The defendants produced a delegation authorization form, a daily movement report, and referred to a previously produced scheduling document. They also stated that they could not locate other responsive documents. The court denied the Third Motion, holding that the produced documents were responsive and that it could not require production of documents that did not exist.

Disposition

The court ordered that Bakambia’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery Disclosures was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants had to search for and produce the documents sought in Request for Production 21, or attest that no such documents existed, and answer the remaining portions of Interrogatory 12. The motion was denied in all other respects. The court denied Bakambia’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery Disclosures. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster.