Williams v. Howard
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:20-cv-00439
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Williams v. Howard, Magistrate Judge Docherty partly granted and partly denied Williams’s discovery motion.
Terrence T. Williams and the defendants in this case. The order also concerns future written discovery and correspondence sent to Williams, but it does not direct the nonparty Will County Adult Detention Facility or its officials.
What happened
Terrence T. Williams sued Brian Howard and others under a federal civil-rights law, alleging unconstitutional treatment at the Olmsted County Adult Detention Facility. He asked for grievance records, help accessing discovery while detained elsewhere, and special labeling for legal mail.
The court found that defendants had already produced 11 responsive grievance records, so it denied that part of the motion as moot. It denied Williams’s request for an order directed to officials at the Will County Adult Detention Facility because that facility was not a party to the case, but ordered defendants to provide written discovery in hard copy and to label future correspondence and discovery as “Legal” or “Privileged.”
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty also ordered defendants to resend any past written discovery provided digitally within 14 days and required both sides to follow the district’s meet-and-confer rules for future motions.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Howard · No. 0:20-cv-00439
- Katherine Menendez
- Nov. 1, 2021
Background
Terrence T. Williams, an inmate housed at the Will County Adult Detention Facility in Joliet, Illinois, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was housed at the Olmsted County Adult Detention Facility in Rochester, Minnesota, between November 2019 and February 2020.
Williams moved for production of documents and requested three forms of relief: (1) production of grievances he submitted while in administrative segregation at the Olmsted County facility, including grievances on form ADC00213; (2) an order directing officials, property clerks, and administrators at the Will County facility to allow him to view discovery, including DVDs and documents; and (3) an order requiring mail from the court or defendants to be marked “Legal” or “Privileged.”
Defendants stated that Olmsted County had located and produced 11 additional paper grievances responsive to the first request. Defendants took no position on the request concerning access to discovery at the Will County facility and did not object to labeling information sent to Williams as legal mail.
Court’s analysis and orders
The court denied the request for additional grievance records as moot because defendants had already searched for and produced the 11 responsive documents.
The court denied the request for an order directed to Will County facility officials, clerks, and administrators. The Will County Adult Detention Facility was not a party to the lawsuit, and the court explained that a case’s resolution cannot bind people or entities that are not parties. The court also stated that alleged denial of access to the courts would ordinarily be raised through a separate civil-rights claim after exhausting available administrative remedies at the detention facility where the inmate is housed. The court stated that those alleged deprivations were not part of this case.
To promote efficient handling of the case, the court ordered defendants to provide any written discovery in hard copy rather than digital format. It further ordered defendants to resend, within 14 days, any past written discovery that had been produced digitally, if any, in hard copy.
The court granted Williams’s request concerning labeling. Court mail would continue to be stamped “LEGAL MAIL / OPEN IN THE PRESENCE / OF THE INMATE.” The court ordered defendants to mark all future correspondence and discovery sent to Williams with “Legal” or “Privileged” on the outside of the mailing.
Disposition
The court ordered that Williams’s discovery motion was DENIED AS MOOT as to the request for additional grievance records, DENIED as to the request for an order directed to Will County officials, clerks, and administrators, and GRANTED as to the request to label future correspondence and discovery. The court also ordered both parties to follow the District of Minnesota’s local rules, including the requirement to meet and confer in good faith before filing future motions and to submit a meet-and-confer statement.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.