Thurmond v. Thomas-Walsh

Background

Kevin Thurmond, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Avion Thomas-Walsh and Frederick Bernstein retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. Thurmond alleged that after he filed a grievance about allergy medication, the defendants withheld medication for approximately forty days. He also alleged that he suffered emotional distress, including fears that prison employees intended to harm him.

The current order concerned two discovery requests. The defendants sought Thurmond’s signed release for his Office of Mental Health records. Thurmond asked the court to prevent disclosure of those records until it ruled on his objections, which asserted that the records were irrelevant and privileged. He also asked the defendants to provide him with a copy of his deposition transcript.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated Thurmond’s request to hold earlier orders in abeyance as a request for a protective order preventing disclosure of the records. It explained that discovery may cover any nonprivileged matter relevant to a party’s claim or defense, and that relevance is interpreted broadly. Because Thurmond claimed emotional injuries resulting from the alleged withholding of his medication, the court found that his Office of Mental Health records were relevant to whether he suffered those injuries and whether the alleged medication withholding caused them.

The court rejected Thurmond’s privilege objection because he had not identified a reason why the records were privileged. It agreed that the records were confidential and repeated its earlier direction that the defendants treat them as confidential and not disseminate them outside the litigation.

The defendants had indicated that they would send Thurmond a copy of his deposition transcript. The court directed them to provide the transcript within two business days after receiving it.

Disposition

The court denied Thurmond’s motion for a protective order preventing disclosure of his Office of Mental Health records. It directed him to return the executed release to the defendants by July 2, 2021. The court granted his motion to compel the defendants to provide a copy of his deposition transcript. The order concerned discovery and did not resolve the underlying First Amendment retaliation claim.