IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

JUAN NEELY, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) No. 12 C 2231 

 ) 

MICHAEL P. RANDLE, et. al. ) Judge Matthew Kennelly 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM IDOC 

 NOW COMES Plaintiff, JUAN NEELY, by and through his attorneys, LOEVY & 

LOEVY, and hereby respectfully requests an order compelling Illinois Department of 

Corrections (IDOC) to produce subpoenaed documents. In support, Plaintiff states as follows: 

Background 

 This motion concerns IDOC’s responses to two subpoenas Plaintiff served on IDOC in 

this case: one on October 24, 2012 and the other on June 19, 2013. See Exhibit A (October 24, 

2012 subpoena) and Exhibit B (June 19, 2013 subpoena). The Court may recall that each of these 

subpoenas has already been the subject of litigation in this matter; Plaintiff needed to file 

motions to compel IDOC to respond to these subpoenas at all. See Doc Nos. 75, 126. 

 Although IDOC subsequently produced some documents responsive to these subpoenas, 

IDOC did not produce all of them. In an effort to gain full compliance with his subpoenas, 

Plaintiff engaged in Local Rule 37.2 correspondence and phone calls relating with IDOC’s 

counsel relating to the documents that were not produced. See, e.g., Exhibit C (correspondence 

dated September 5, 2013). Plaintiff has reached impasse with IDOC as to the categories of 

documents discussed herein. Id. 
2 

Inmate Grievances Relating to Medical/Dental Care at Pinckneyville and Stateville

 In his October 24, 2012 subpoena, Plaintiff sought production of inmate grievances 

relating to mental and dental care at Pinckneyville and Stateville from 2005 to 2011. See Exhibit 

A, Paragraph F. Although IDOC made no contemporaneous objection to this portion of the 

subpoena, the IDOC Defendants objected to a similar Rule 34 request on the basis that it would 

be too burdensome to search for responsive grievances. See Exhibit D (IDOC Defendants’ 

Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production), Paragraph 7 (“grievances are not 

centrally kept and are not categorized by type”). According to IDOC Defendants, the only way to 

search for responsive grievances would be to search the individual master files of all IDOC 

inmates at those facilities over that period of time, see id., a task that Plaintiff concedes would be 

too burdensome. 

 Several months later, however, Plaintiff learned through subsequent discovery that 

IDOC, in fact, maintains spreadsheets of medical and dental grievances filed at each facility and 

that these spreadsheets identify the individual grievant. In other word, IDOC would not need to 

search all inmate master files for medical/dental grievances—IDOC could simply go to the 

master files of the inmates listed on the spreadsheets and pull the relevant grievances. 

 When Plaintiff learned this information, he asked IDOC whether it would produce inmate 

grievances listed in the spreadsheets. IDOC refused on the basis that the request was overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and raised privacy concerns. 

 Setting aside the issue of whether IDOC – a non-party to this case – even has standing to 

object to Plaintiff’s subpoena on relevance grounds, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that these 
3 

objections were not founded. Specifically, Plaintiff explained that any privacy issues could be 

resolved through a protective order, and cited Judge Kendall’s recent decision in Awalt v. 

Marketti, No. 11 C 6142, 2012 WL 6568242 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2012) for the proposition that 

Plaintiff’s request was not overly broad. Exhibit E (correspondence dated September 6, 2013). 

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s efforts, IDOC’s counsel indicated it was standing on its objections. 

Awalt is similar to this case in that both cases involve Section 1983 claims by inmates 

who allege that their serious medical needs were ignored by jail/prison personnel, and that 

jail/prison defendants should be held liable under Monell for maintaining a widespread policy, 

practice, or custom was the cause of their injury. In Awalt, the Defendant Grundy County Jail 

objected to discovery of other inmates’ medical grievances on the same grounds that IDOC 

raises here. Judge Kendall rejected these arguments, concluding that discovery of other inmates’ 

medical issues was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that would be 

admissible on Plaintiff’s Monell claim. Awalt v. Marketti, 2012 WL 6568242, at *4-*5; see also 

id. at *6 (finding that the 5-year time period for which Plaintiff sought grievances was not overly 

broad). As to the privacy interests of inmates who were not parties to the case, Judge Kendall 

observed that the privacy of those individuals could be protected by entry of an appropriate 

protective order. Id. at *8. As Plaintiff communicated to IDOC, he would certainly agree to the 

entry of a similarly appropriate protective order in this case. 

 For the same reasons that Judge Kendall ordered Grundy County to produce discovery 

relating to other inmates’ medical issues, IDOC should be ordered to produce copies of the 

inmate grievances listed on the spreadsheets it maintains of medical/dental grievances for the 

2005 to 2011 time period requested. 
4 

Defendants’ Employment Records 

Plaintiff has also requested that IDOC produce employment records for the IDOC 

Defendants. See Exhibit A (October 24, 2013 subpoena), Paragraph H (seeking all employment 

records for Defendants); Exhibit B (June 19, 2013 subpoena), Paragraph 3 (seeking the same but 

also any critical assessments). 

IDOC did not object to Plaintiff’s October 24 subpoena, but it raised an objection (albeit 

an untimely one)1 to Plaintiff’s June 19 subpoena on the basis that the request was overly broad, 

unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Exhibit F. The only information that IDOC was willing to divulge from Defendants’ 

employment records was IDOC has never disciplined Defendant Mitchell (a dentist who treated 

Mr. Neely) in connection with her treatment of inmates. Id.

Again, setting aside the issue of whether non-party IDOC even has standing to object to 

object on relevance grounds, IDOC’s untimely, boilerplate objections lack merit. As many 

Courts in this district have found, individual defendants’ personnel files are discoverable in 

Section 1983 cases. See Bond v. Utreras, No. 04-2617, 2006 WL 695447, at *4 (N.D. Ill. March 

10, 2006) (“[T]he Individual Defendants’ job applications, performance reviews, and personnel 

files contain relevant information and are discoverable”); Vodak v. City of Chicago, No. 03-

2463, 2004 WL 1381043, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2004) (Nolan, J.) (holding that Chicago police 

 

1

 Rule 45(c)(2)(B) requires objections to subpoenas to be made by responding parties within 14 

days of service. See also Brogren v. Pohlad, No. 94 C 6301, 1994 WL 654917, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 

Nov. 14, 1994) (non-party waived its right to object to a subpoena where it failed to serve timely 

objections); see also Nat’l Paint & Coatings Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 147 F.R.D. 184, 185 (N.D. 

Ill. 1993) (non-party may waive its right to object where it does not serve written objections 

within the fourteen-day period). IDOC’s objections in this matter have not come close to meeting 

this 14-day deadline. 
5 

officers’ “personnel files ... are relevant for purposes of discovery” and ordering them to be 

produced to a Section 1983 plaintiff); Terry v. Zernicke, No. 94-4052, 1996 WL 5183, at *2 

(N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 1996) (“The personnel files, including disciplinary histories, of law enforcement 

officials are relevant to assessing a claim of misconduct by such officials and are, therefore, 

presumptively discoverable”). 

Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a compromise, Plaintiff agreed to narrow his requests 

to discipline-related documents and job evaluations/assessments for only two of the IDOC 

Defendants: Defendants Jacqueline Mitchell and Danielle Taylor. IDOC rejected this offer. 

These records are particularly relevant in this case given Plaintiff’s Monell claim. For 

example, although IDOC admits that it has never disciplined Defendant Mitchell in connection 

with inmate medical/dental care, Plaintiff notes that Defendant Mitchell is named as a Defendant 

in several lawsuits in this district, many of which allege that she was deliberately indifferent to 

various Plaintiffs’ medical needs and some of which have resulted in settlements. The records at 

issue may reveal the identities of IDOC personnel who were on notice of these complaints 

against Defendant Mitchell and what they did to investigate and/or remedy the situation. The 

records at issue will also show what metrics were used to assess the performance of the IDOC 

employees who are responsible for the medical/dental care of IDOC inmates and could therefore 

be relevant to a Monell claim based on failure to supervise/train and/or control. 

For these reasons, IDOC should be ordered to produce employment records for 

Defendants Mitchell and Taylor relating to any disciplinary matters, critical assessments, and 

performance evaluations. 
6 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order IDOC to produce the 

inmate grievances and employee records of the two IDOC employees discussed herein. 

 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

 /s/ Elizabeth Mazur 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Arthur Loevy 

Jon Loevy 

Elizabeth Mazur 

Vincenzo Field 

LOEVY & LOEVY 

312 North May St., Ste. 100 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5900 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 

 I, Elizabeth Mazur, an attorney, certify that I served this document on all counsel of record 

via the Court’s ECF system. 

 /s/ Elizabeth Mazur