UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

VERONICA RAYNOR, Individually and as : 

the Personal Representative of the : 

Estate of Reuel Griffin, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 14-0750 (RC) 

 : 

 v. : Re Document No.: 84 

 : 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO 2010 

On March 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the District of Columbia (the 

“District”) to, among other things, produce emails for thirteen custodians for the years 2009 and 

2010. See Pl.’s Mot. Compel Discovery, ECF No. 84. Prior to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants 

had produced documents for those custodians from 2011 to January 2012. The additional 

documents that Plaintiff seeks are relevant, Plaintiff argues, because part of her theory in this 

case is that the District’s policy, custom, or practices concerning payment for healthcare services 

to certain persons in the District’s custody caused the decedent to suffer injuries resulting from 

the denial or delay of necessary medical treatment or testing. Plaintiff believes that these denials 

and delays arose as a result of the District’s alleged improper reliance on Medicaid coverage 

despite a statute excluding Medicaid coverage for individuals who are inmates in public 

institutions or patients in an institution for mental diseases. And while the decedent’s break in 

Medicaid coverage did not appear to occur until late-2010, Plaintiff argues that she “should have 

the full extent of the city’s practice []—even if it didn’t affect [the decedent], if it affected other 
2 

patients at St. Elizabeths” because she needs to know the “period of time that the District had in 

place or had a practice of not having funding in place to pay for medical care.” Status 

Conference Tr. at 11:8–14, ECF No. 113. 

On July 14, 2017, the Court held a status conference at which the parties addressed 

Plaintiff’s motion. See Status Conference Tr., ECF no. 115. At that hearing, the District 

represented to the Court that Plaintiff’s own expert had opined that “the issue regarding 

Medicaid and payment for outside services did not come to become an issue until sometime in 

2010. So there is no mention of 2009.” Status Conference Tr. at 4:24–5:2, ECF No. 115. 

Plaintiff on the other hand argued that the expert “did not say that there was no evidence before 

2010.” Status Conference Tr. at 8:1–2, ECF No. 115. Based on the parties representations and 

the record concerning the 2010 issue, the Court was satisfied that the District should produce 

emails going back to 2010 and thus ordered it to produce them. Status Conference Tr. at 8:22–

23, ECF No. 115. However, given the apparent dispute about the expert’s testimony on the 2009 

issue, but without briefing on it, the Court took the 2009 issue under advisement and gave 

Plaintiff and the District permission to supplement their briefs.1

 Status Conference Tr., at 8:23–

9:1, 28:8–11, ECF No. 115; see also Min. Order, Jul. 14, 2017 (granting in part and denying in 

part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery). 

 Thereafter, the District filed a supplemental brief identifying the relevant portions of 

Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony. The District emphasized that the Plaintiff’s expert testified that 

“until somewhere around 2010 [] patients from St. Elizabeths that were referred out to outside 

hospitals, facilities, were reimbursed by Medicaid” and that there were no issues with respect to 

 

1

 The Court also held a status conference on August 16, 2017 and heard from the parties on 

the 2009 issue, but again took the issue under advisement. See Status Conference Tr., at 11:21–

22, ECF No. 113. 
3 

payments. Defs.’ Suppl. Filing at 1–2, ECF No. 110. Plaintiff responded to this filing, but did 

not supply any evidence to suggest that the Medicaid payment issue had ever arisen prior to 

2010. 

Upon consideration of all the briefing, the parties representations, and the entire record in 

this case, the Court is persuaded that, under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the burden of the Plaintiff’s proposed discovery outweighs any likely benefit. 

Plaintiff has not shown that requiring the District to search for documents for all custodians 

before 2010 is likely to result in discovery of useful information. All of the evidence presented 

to the Court suggests that the decedent’s Medicaid issues did not arise until at least 2010 and 

Plaintiff has given this Court no reason to suspect that the issues might have arisen any earlier. 

Nor has the Plaintiff given the Court any reason to suspect that any Medicaid payment issues for 

any patient ever arose before 2010.2

 On the other hand, the burden of requiring the District to 

search for, review, and produce a year’s worth of emails for approximately a dozen custodians 

appears significant.3

 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s requested discovery is not 

“proportional to the needs of the case” and thus the Court will not require the District to produce 

documents prior to 2010. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).4

 

 

2

 In support of her motion for the 2009 documents, Plaintiff relies on a single entry in the 

decedent’s medical chart. That entry states: “Referred to Orthopic surgery for evaluation. 

Waiting for medical insurance.” Pl.’s Mot., Ex. 1 at 5, ECF No. 84-2. This entry, however, is 

simply too vague and inconclusive to carry the day. 

 

3

 For example, when the Court ordered the production of the 2010 emails, the District 

represented that it would have to review and produce approximately 5,000 unique emails, which 

would take approximately 2 months. See Status Conference Tr. at 3:23–4:13, ECF No. 113. The 

Court has no reason to suspect that the production volume for 2009 emails would be lower in any 

significant respect than the production volume for 2010. 

4

 Previously, this Court ordered that the District review and produce responsive emails 

from 2009 through 2012 for a custodian that all parties agreed was central to the medical 
4 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of emails prior to 2010 

(ECF No. 84) is hereby DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 3, 2017 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS 

 United States District Judge 

 

coverage issue—Ms. Claudia Schlosberg. See Status Conference Tr. at 26:10–27:18, ECF No. 

115. If, upon reviewing those documents from 2009, Plaintiff identifies evidence indicating that 

the Medicaid coverage issue manifested itself before 2010, the Court would be willing to revisit 

this issue.