Braun v. D.O.C.

Background

Nathan Christopher Braun brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional-rights violations by state actors. The claims concern alleged injuries resulting from defendants’ actions during Braun’s hunger strike, including alleged excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

The order addressed four motions: Braun’s request to file documents under seal (Dkt. 72), motion to compel (Dkt. 77), request to appoint a third-party medical and mental-health evaluator (Dkt. 80), and motion to compel a discovery request (Dkt. 86). A separate motion to compel seeking injunctive relief was to be addressed in a separate report and recommendation and was not decided in this order.

Motion to Seal

Braun sought to seal documents that he said showed defendants’ illegal acts and feared that making them public would lead to retaliation. The documents appeared to contain communications or records of communications with defendants and their legal counsel about Braun’s claims concerning his legal materials.

The court found that Braun had already provided the documents or their information to defendants, making harm from public disclosure unlikely. The court also stated that it would not consider communications submitted only by one side. The motion to seal was denied, and Docket Entries 72, 73, 73-1, 73-2, and 73-3 were ordered unsealed on November 3, 2020. The court reminded defendants and their counsel that unlawful retaliation against Braun would not be tolerated.

Motion to Compel Answers from Counsel

Braun sought answers to interrogatories directed to defense counsel, Kevin Jonassen. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 allows a party to serve interrogatories—written questions seeking information relevant to the claims and defenses—on another party.

Because Braun represented that the interrogatories were intended for legal counsel rather than the named defendants, the court held that the requests fell outside Rule 33. The motion to compel was denied because defense counsel were not parties to the action.

Request for Court-Appointed Experts

Braun asked the court to appoint a physical and mental-health expert to diagnose the extent of his alleged injuries. He argued that his lack of funds and court-approved fee-waiver status entitled him to such assistance.

The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the statute authorizing fee-waiver status for qualifying litigants, does not authorize court-funded experts or payment of litigation expenses other than court fees. The court denied the request to appoint experts and pay their fees and costs to the extent it was based on Braun’s fee-waiver status.

Motion to Compel Broader Document Production

Braun asked defendants to produce all records, files, and materials related to his nearly ten-page “Affidavit of the Facts and the Merits.” Defendants said the affidavit did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They also represented that they had produced incident reports, a supervisor’s review, staff-training records, videos, and photographs related to the alleged November 6, 2018 incident, although Braun did not indicate that this production satisfied his request.

Rule 34 requires a document-production request to describe each requested item or category with reasonable particularity, meaning enough detail to give the responding party reasonable notice of what must be produced. The court found that Braun’s request effectively sought every document related to the affidavit and did not identify particular categories of documents. The motion to compel was denied.

Disposition

The court denied Braun’s motion to seal, motion to compel, motion to appoint a third-party medical and mental-health evaluator, and motion to compel a discovery request. It ordered the specified sealed docket entries unsealed on November 3, 2020. The order did not reach the merits of Braun’s underlying constitutional-rights claims.