Bakambia v. Schnell

Background

Marc Amouri Bakambia, proceeding without a lawyer and serving a prison sentence in a Minnesota Department of Corrections facility, filed three motions to compel discovery and a motion for sanctions. The discovery motions challenged responses from the Minnesota Department of Corrections defendants and the Centurion defendants. The court reviewed the disputes despite concerns that the parties had not meaningfully discussed them before filing the motions. The court directed Bakambia to send defense counsel a letter and attempt to arrange a discussion when phone contact was unsuccessful, and stated that defense counsel must engage in that process as they would with a represented party.

First Motion to Compel

The First Motion to Compel was granted in part and denied in part.

The court declined to require production of call transcripts that did not exist, but ordered the Minnesota Department of Corrections defendants to produce, within 14 days, audio recordings of calls Bakambia made to attorneys Terrence Duggins and Steve Cooper. The court found those recordings relevant to claims concerning alleged interference with his attempts to communicate with attorneys. It denied the request for recordings of other calls because the record did not show that they were sufficiently related to his access-to-courts claim.

The court denied requests for records of meetings with Chaplain Paul Osumma and an outgoing-mail receipt to Governor Tim Walz because the defendants stated that those records did not exist. It also denied requests for additional legal-visit logs, records of regular visits involving other incarcerated people, and a spreadsheet showing year-end Department of Corrections budget funds. The court found the latter information unrelated and disproportionate to Bakambia’s claim that Department of Corrections defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

The court denied requests for extensive discipline records, surveillance videos, and additional incident reports. It credited counsel’s statement that the requested videos no longer existed under the Department of Corrections’ retention policy, found that the incident reports had been produced, and found that the record did not support Bakambia’s allegations that evidence had been tampered with or improperly disposed of.

For a request concerning a February 12, 2020 meeting with case worker Rebecca Erickson, information about another incarcerated person, and a 2019 year-end PRT report, the court found the existing case-manager notes sufficient as to the meeting and denied discovery about the other incarcerated person. It granted the request for the 2019 year-end PRT report.

The court granted Bakambia’s request for his entire case-management file while under Erickson’s supervision. It denied requests for dental records, sick-call slips that did not exist, additional EKG records, surveillance footage, and further results relating to a January 16, 2021 test because the defendants had produced the existing responsive records or represented that no additional records existed. It required Defendant Victor Wanchena to clarify which previously produced medical records responded to one request and granted the request for Bakambia’s medication-administration record for November 1, 2020 through February 1, 2021.

The court denied challenges to Commissioner Schnell’s responses concerning written complaints, certified-mail receipts, and alleged manipulation of incident reports. It found that the Department of Corrections did not possess the requested certified-mail receipts and that Bakambia had not shown that records were deficient or manipulated.

Second Motion to Compel

The Second Motion to Compel was granted in part and denied in part.

The court denied Bakambia’s request for the entire files of his complaints to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice against Brent Plackner and Dr. Darryl Quiram. It granted the motion, however, to the extent it sought the defendants’ answers to those complaints and other documents containing their statements to the Board about the treatment they provided Bakambia. The court rejected the argument that Minnesota confidentiality provisions prevented the federal court from ordering the Centurion defendants to produce discoverable information and entered a protective order allowing those materials to be designated confidential.

The court granted the request concerning Dr. Quiram’s education and employment history only to the extent that his response must state whether his professional background included training or experience as a military doctor or an interventional cardiologist. If it did not, no further supplementation was required. The court denied requests for additional information about how a hospital received medication and diagnosis information, additional answers to related requests, and broader disciplinary-history information because the existing responses were adequate.

The court granted in part Bakambia’s request for Brent Plackner’s records of completed shifts on specified dates. If the medical records already contained all responsive information in Plackner’s possession, custody, or control, Plackner had to clarify that in writing. If he had other responsive records, such as a personal log, he had to produce them.

Third Motion to Compel

The Third Motion to Compel was granted in part and denied in part. The court ordered the Centurion defendants to provide initial disclosures within 14 days. Documents already produced through later discovery did not need to be produced again, but they had to be identified if the initial disclosures required them.

The court denied the request for additional relief against the Minnesota Department of Corrections defendants because they had timely served their initial disclosures by mailing them on March 22, 2021. It found that Bakambia had not shown that postage was manipulated. The court also declined to expand the discovery limits in the scheduling order because Bakambia had not shown good cause.

Motion for Sanctions and Disposition

The court denied the motion for sanctions. It held that service by mail was permitted and that the applicable rules did not require mailed documents to include page numbers or headers generated by the court’s electronic filing system. Bakambia had not shown that counsel violated a court order or a procedural rule.

The order therefore states that the First Motion to Compel, Second Motion to Compel, and Third Motion to Compel were each granted in part and denied in part, and that the motion for sanctions was denied. Judge Katherine Menendez’s order addressed discovery and sanctions rather than deciding the underlying claims.