Bakambia v. Schnell

Background

Marc Amouri Bakambia, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over alleged constitutional violations while he was confined at a state correctional facility in Rush City, Minnesota, in May 2019. The claims, as previously described by the court, allege that Defendants failed to protect him and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and discriminated against him based on custodial status and national origin in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The order addressed Bakambia’s fourth motion to compel discovery and request for subpoenas under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 45. He argued that Defendants had not complied with an October 22, 2021 discovery order and that Kenneth Peterson had lied under oath. He sought a complete response to a discovery request directed to Vicki Janssen, a written explanation from Peterson, unredacted versions of documents 084 through 086 and 227 through 228, strict compliance with the earlier order, production of all documents produced under that order to the court, and two subpoenas.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

The court explained that discovery must be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. It also stated that a party cannot be compelled to produce a document that does not exist. Because Defendants said there was no report describing the outcome of any review of the alleged comment by Branden Tatum, the court denied the request for that report.

The court denied the request for a written explanation from Kenneth Peterson. It concluded that Defendants’ answer to the original complaint was not verified or made under oath, because the applicable rule generally does not require a pleading to be verified. The court also noted that discovery had closed and that no additional discovery would be allowed absent a further court order.

The court denied the request for unredacted documents 081 through 086. The earlier discovery order required production of records identifying the officer in charge and watch commander on May 20, not records identifying staff assigned to the segregation unit on May 21. The court concluded that seeking new discovery about May 21 came too late. It stated that this ruling did not approve Defendants’ unilateral redactions and that any concerns about sensitive information should have been raised through a request for a protective order.

The court granted in part the request concerning documents 227 through 228. It held that Defendants could not rely on the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or relevance objections to redact otherwise responsive federal discovery, and that the redactions conflicted with the earlier order requiring records showing which units Defendant David Schmitt worked in on May 20 and 21, regardless of whether the records contained other information. The court ordered Defendants to produce unredacted versions of documents 227 through 228 within 15 days.

Under Rule 37, the court also sanctioned Defendants $500 for failing to comply with the October 22, 2021 order. The amount was to be paid to Bakambia within 45 days. The court declined to award additional expenses, finding that further payment would be unjust under the circumstances.

The court denied Bakambia’s requests for strict compliance with the earlier discovery order and for production of all documents to the court. Except for documents 227 through 228, Bakambia had not shown how Defendants’ production was incomplete or improper, and the court stated that it could not act as his advocate by reviewing documents for him. The court also denied the subpoena requests because the requested information either did not exist, had already been ordered produced, or did not need to be produced. It declined to decide whether Rule 45 permits a subpoena to obtain documents or testimony from a party rather than a nonparty.

Disposition

The court ordered that Bakambia’s fourth motion to compel and subpoena request was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants were ordered to produce unredacted documents 227 through 228 within 15 days and pay Bakambia $500 within 45 days. All prior consistent orders remained in effect. The order was signed by Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge.