Bakambia v. Hart et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Marc Amouri Bakambia,
Plaintiff,
v.
Alexandria Hart, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-3653 (LMP/DJF)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia’s Motion to Compel
Discovery Disclosures; and Motion for Credibility Assessment (ECF No. 147) (“Motion”).1 Mr.
Bakambia is incarcerated at the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ (“DOC”) Minnesota
Correctional Facility – Lino Lakes (“MCF-Lino Lakes”). Defendants Alexandria Hart, Christine
Oberembt, and Corrections Officer Michael Oliveras (collectively, “Defendants”) are DOC
employees. 	Mr. Bakambia’s claims stem from events at his previous place of incarceration,
Minnesota Correctional Facility – Stillwater (“MCF-Stillwater”). He is suing Ms. Hart2 and Ms.
Oberembt for deliberate indifference to his medical needs because they allegedly delayed the
scheduling of a medical appointment with Dr. Todd, a neurologist at the Noran Neurological Clinic,
without a justifiable basis for doing so in 2024. (ECF No. 135 at 17-18.) He is also suing Officer
Oliveras because Officer Oliveras allegedly: (1.) denied Mr. Bakambia access to his prescription
migraine medication when Mr. Bakambia tried to collect his property after being released from
segregation; and (2.) hid Mr. Bakambia’s medication so that other MCF-Stillwater staff could not
1 Mr. Bakambia has filed two additional motions to compel discovery (ECF Nos. 188, 203),
which the Court will address separately.
2 Ms. Hart in her official capacity was substituted for Defendant Kathy Reid in her official
capacity pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) after Ms. Reid passed away during these proceedings.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 24

find it. (Id. at 15-16, 18-19.)
Mr. Bakambia sent documents requests 1-16 and interrogatories 1-11 and 13-21 to
Defendants on September 15, 2025. (ECF No. 171-1.) Defendants responded to those requests and
interrogatories on October 20, 2025. (ECF No. 148.) On December 16, 2025 (ECF No. 149) and
December 23, 2025 (ECF No. 150), Defendants supplemented their initial responses. The Motion
seeks to compel supplemental or alternative responses to Mr. Bakambia’s September 15 discovery
requests and asks the Court to “assess the credibility of Defendants, their Counsel, responses to
discoveries, including officials who helped responding [sic] to those discoveries.” (ECF No. 162 at
30.) For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the Motion in part and denies the motion in part.
I. 	Legal Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs discovery in federal court, allowing parties to
“obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). While Rule 26 contemplates
liberal disclosure, discovery is not unlimited. See, e.g., Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 46 F.R.D. 605,
607 (D.D.C. 1969) (“Modern civil procedure in the Federal courts contemplates liberal disclosure …
Nevertheless, discovery is not unbridled and not unlimited.”). “The party seeking discovery must
satisfy some threshold showing of relevancy before discovery is required.” Great Am. Ins. Co., 2024
WL 6475967, at *4 (citing Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992)). “Once
that threshold has been met, the resisting party must show specifically how each interrogatory or
request for production [or request for admission] is not relevant or how the discovery is overly
broad, burdensome, or oppressive.” Id. (citation modified).
“As a matter of practical reality, the Court must accept, at face value, a party’s representation
(ECF No. 106.)
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 24

that it has fully produced all materials that are discoverable.” Prokosch v. Catalina Lighting, Inc.,
193 F.R.D. 633, 637 (D. Minn. 2000) (citation modified). Therefore, if a movant seeks to compel
production because he does not believe the non-movant’s representation that it has fully produced all
discoverable materials, he must support his accusation with “specific evidence” that suggests
responsive discoverable materials exist. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. West, No. 11-cv-2297 (PAM/JJK),
2012 WL 12894845, at *5 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2012). 	He cannot rely on mere “conjecture and
speculation.” Id.
II. 	Analysis
A. 	Request for Production 1
Request for Production 1 requests “offender property reports” for all inmates who: (1.) were
released from segregation on June 11-14, 2026; and (2.) received their property after being released
from segregation. 	(ECF No. 171-1 at 8.) 	Defendants initially told Mr. Bakambia they had not
located any responsive documents, but they would continue to search for them. (ECF No. 148 at 3.)
They subsequently supplemented their response and produced the requested documents (ECF No.
149 at 21-35; ECF No. 150 at 4-5). 	Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response because he
believes the report for his own property is not the original authentic copy. His belief is premised on
DOC policies that require staff to document excess and confiscated property and to sign their full
names at the bottom of the reports. The report Defendants produced for Mr. Bakambia’s property
lacks any notations or any MCF-Stillwater staff member’s signature. (ECF No. 150 at 4-5.) Mr.
Bakambia wishes to compel Defendants to produce the original report.
The Court denies Mr. Bakambia’s Motion as to Request for Production 1 for two reasons.
First, the mere fact that some regulations exist does not necessarily mean that DOC staff follow them
at all times. Indeed, the reports Defendants produced for other inmates have inconsistent notations.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 24

(Compare ECF No. 149 at 23-24, report with no notations with id. at 21-22, 25-35, reports with
notations). Second, Mr. Bakambia did his own search for his offender report through the DOC’s
internal record request process for inmates, and the report he received is identical to the one
produced by Defendants (ECF No. 150 at 5; 153-1, 153 at 7). Therefore, it appears that the only
copy of the report that exists is the one produced by Defendants, and Mr. Bakambia proffers no
evidence to the contrary. The Court cannot compel Defendants to produce documents that do not
exist. See Farmers Ins. Exch., 2012 WL 12894845, at *5 (“Of course, the Court cannot order any
party to produce something in discovery that does not, in fact, exist.”).
B. 	Request for Production 3
Request for Production 3 requests records produced by Sergeant Mbaya Nyembwe about his
attempts to find Mr. Bakambia’s Imitrex medication. (ECF No. 171-1 at 9.) Defendants responded
with boilerplate objections based on vagueness; they also objected based on a Minnesota state law
that limits the public disclosure of certain state documents. (ECF No. 148 at 4.) Notwithstanding
those objections, Defendants further stated that they were unable to locate any responsive
documents. (ECF No. 148 at 4.) Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response because he believes
defense counsel and Defendants “have not done any diligent inquiry to discuss this with Sergeant
Nyembwe.” (ECF No. 162 at 7.) His belief is premised on his experience litigating against the DOC
and defense counsel in a different unrelated case, when they allegedly made false representations
during discovery.
The Court denies the Motion as to Request for Production 3 for several reasons. 	First,
conclusory allegations concerning alleged actions in other unrelated cases are not evidence that
Defendants have failed to make diligent efforts to produce the documents Mr. Bakambia seeks.
Second, Mr. Bakambia’s objection appears to focus on whether Defendants have interviewed
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 4 of 24

Sergeant Nyembwe, but Mr. Bakambia requested a production of documents. It is unclear how a
failure to interview a non-party bears any connection to a request for documents. His objection is
therefore incongruent with the nature of the discovery he requests. See Kaliher v. North Memorial
Health Care, No. 23-cv-440 (KMM/DLM), 2025 WL 2926891, at *7 (D. Minn. Oct. 15, 2025) (“A
request for information is sought via interrogatory, not through a document request.”).
C. 	Request for Production 4
Request for Production 4 requests records demonstrating Officer Oliveras did linen exchange
on June 12, 2024. (ECF No. 171-1 at 9.) Defendants responded with boilerplate objections based on
vagueness; they also objected based on a Minnesota state law that limits the public disclosure of
certain state documents. (ECF No. 148 at 4.) Notwithstanding those objections, Defendants stated
they had not located responsive documents, but they subsequently supplemented their response with
a log showing linen exchange was conducted on that date. (ECF No. 149 at 18.) The log, however,
does not state who did the exchange. Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response on the basis
that MCF-Lino Lakes maintains linen exchange logs that allegedly show who conducted the
exchange, therefore, MCF-Stillwater must also maintain such a log. (ECF No. 162 at 9-11; ECF No.
155, MCF- Lino Lakes linen exchange log.)
The Court denies the Motion as to Request for Production 4. The fact that one correctional
facility maintains a particular set of logs does not prove that all correctional facilities use the same
logs. 	Moreover, the log that Mr. Bakambia produced undermines his argument. 	The log has a
signature line for the staff member that does the exchange, but it is unsigned. Even MCF-Lino Lake
logs do not necessarily identify the staff member who conducted a particular linen exchange.3
3 Mr. Bakambia also states that, if a log is not produced, he will seek to delay any ruling on a
motion for summary judgment that Defendants may bring. Because such a motion is not before the
Court, it declines to speculate regarding its merits.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 5 of 24

D. 	Request for Production 5
Request for Production 5 seeks records in the DOC and Centurion of Minnesota, LLC’s
(“Centurion”) possession regarding the scheduling of follow-up appointments that Dr. Todd
requested on June 21, 2023. (ECF No. 171 at 9.) Centurion is a private company that contracts with
the DOC to provide medical and psychiatric services to inmates. (ECF No. 152 at 2.) Defendants
responded with boilerplate vagueness objections and also objected to the request “to the extent that it
seeks documents not in their possession.” (ECF No. 148 at 5.) Notwithstanding those objections,
they produced several documents concerning Mr. Bakambia’s medical treatment at the Noran
Neurological Clinic (id. at 34-43), a document titled “Off-Site Scheduling Log Entry Form” that
records the approval and scheduling of an appointment at the Edina Nura Pain Management Clinic
(id. at 72-74), and documents concerning Mr. Bakambia’s treatment at the Edina Nura Pain Clinic
(ECF No. 148 at 105-113). Mr. Bakambia does not believe these documents are responsive to his
request, and he demands that Defendants request documents from Centurion because: (1.) the Court
previously dismissed his conspiracy claim because the DOC and at its agents are considered a single
entity; and (2.) Centurion has a contractual obligation to assist the DOC in any litigation. (ECF No.
162 at 11-16.)
As a threshold matter, the Court disagrees with Mr. Bakambia that the documents Defendants
cite are not responsive. These documents show that: (1.) Dr. Todd treated Mr. Bakambia at the
Noran Neurological Clinic on June 21, 2023 (ECF No. 148 at 35-42); the clinic referred Mr.
Bakambia for a “Pain Clinic Consult” (id. at 72); the referral was approved (id. at 73); and the Edina
Nura Pain Clinic examined Mr. Bakambia and recommended a plan of care (id. at 105-13). Though
these documents do not show everything that Mr. Bakambia may want to see, that does not mean
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 6 of 24

they are unresponsive to his request.
As to Mr. Bakambia’s demand that Defendants request responsive documents from
Centurion, the Court grants the Motion. Mr. Bakambia’s first ground for his request is erroneous.
Mr. Bakambia’s conspiracy claims were dismissed because: (1.) he only made one allegation that
was sufficient to infer an agreement existed among three of the defendants; and (2.) that particular
group of three defendants consisted entirely of DOC employees, such that Mr. Bakambia’s
conspiracy claim was legally untenable under the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. (ECF No. 77
at 18-20.) The Court did not rule that the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine applied because non-
DOC employees were acting as the DOC’s agents.
Mr. Bakambia’s second ground for his request is meritorious, however. Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 34, documents within the “possession, custody, or control” of a party must be
produced if they are relevant and production would not be unduly burdensome. “Control” includes
documents that are in the party’s actual possession, as well as documents that are in a third party's
possession when the “party has the right, authority, or practical ability to obtain” them. Prokosch v.
Catalina Lighting, 193 F.R.D. 633, 636 (D. Minn. 2000). Centurion’s contract with the DOC states
that Centurion must provide documents to the DOC when the DOC is a defendant in litigation,
regardless of whether Centurion is a party as well.4 (ECF No. 152 at 19.) Because the DOC has a
legal right to obtain documents from Centurion related to Centurion’s services under its contract
with the DOC, the Court concludes that any documents in Centurion’s possession related to such
services are within the control of the DOC. See Rosie D. v. Romney, 256 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (D.
Mass. 2003) (stating “control” under Rule 34 “may be established by ... a legal right pursuant to a
contractual provision”); McElgunn v. CUNA Mut. Group, No. 06-cv-5061 (KES), 2008 WL 271872,
4 This contract was produced by Defendants in response to a discovery request from Mr.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 7 of 24

at *2 (D.S.D. July 10, 2008) (same). Therefore, the Court grants Mr. Bakambia’s Motion as to
Request for Production 5 and directs the DOC to request any documents Centurion may possess that
are responsive to Mr. Bakambia’s discovery requests.
E. 	Request for Production 6
Request for Production 6 is nearly identical to Request for Production 5, except it seeks
documents in the possession of Noran Neurological Clinic. 	(ECF No. 171-1 at 9.) 	Defendants
raised the same objections and cited the same documents in response to this Request as they did in
response to Request for Production 5. 	(ECF No. 148 at 5.) 	Mr. Bakambia also objects to
Defendants’ response on the same grounds and argues that the Noran Neurological Clinic is subject
to the terms of the DOC’s contract with Centurion as a subcontractor. He points to the contract’s
provisions concerning subcontractors, which states that it applies “with equal force and effect to all
approved subcontractors engaged by the Contractor.” (ECF No. 152 at 20.) But Mr. Bakambia
overlooks another provision of the contract, which excludes “network providers; hospitals and
physician groups; specialty, diagnostic and interventional care providers” from the contract’s
definition of a “subcontractor.” (Id.) Because Noran Neurological Clinic falls within this exception,
the Court denies the Motion as to Request for Production 6.
F. 	Request for Production 7
Request for Production 7 requests records showing Dr. Shicker: (1.) approved of Dr. Todd’s
June 21, 2023 recommendation that Mr. Bakambia receive occipital nerve block injections within
three months; and (2.) ordered that the recommended procedure be carried out by a particular
deadline. 	(ECF No. 171-1 at 10.) 	Dr. Shicker is a Centurion employee who was allegedly
responsible for approving Mr. Bakambia’s medical care. (ECF No. 1 at 14, 32-33; ECF No. 77 at
Bakambia. (ECF No. 171-2 at 16; ECF No. 152.)
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 8 of 24

31.) Defendants raised boilerplate objections related to vagueness and argumentativeness. (ECF
No. 148 at 5.) 	Notwithstanding those objections, they produced documents in response to the
request. (Id. at 35-42.) Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response because: (1.) he does not
believe the documents they produced and cited are responsive; and (2.) defense counsel allegedly
told Mr. Bakambia during a meet-and-confer that he would look to see if he could find other
responsive documents. (ECF No. 162 at 16.)
The Court grants the Motion as to Request for Production 7. 	None of the documents
Defendants cite appear to show Dr. Shicker approving Dr. Todd’s June 21, 2023 recommendation.
The documents include summaries of Dr. Todd’s June 21, 2023 medical examination and treatment
recommendations. 	One of these documents, which was produced twice, states that a Centurion
provider reviewed Dr. Todd’s recommendation, but it does not clearly identify the reviewing
provider; it only contains an illegible signature5 attesting to the fact that this provider reviewed Dr.
Todd’s report. (ECF No. 148 at 35, 39.) The Court therefore directs Defendants either to produce
documents that are responsive to Request for Production 7 or unambiguously state that they have
been unable to locate responsive documents after conducting a diligent search.
G. 	Request for Production 8
Request for Production 8 requests all of Mr. Bakambia’s medical records from January 2023
to the present, including “all offsite specialty record, imaging, specialist requests, and approval of
them, nurse progress notes and provider progress notes, and all communication (verbal, telephone
calls, emails, etc.) between Centurion providers and Neurologist regarding [Mr. Bakambia’s] care.”
(ECF No. 171-1 at 10.) Defendants raised boilerplate vagueness, relevance, and burden objections.
They also objected to the request “to the extent that it seeks documents that are not in their
5 Based on a similar signature in a different document in the record, this signature may
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 9 of 24

possession.” Notwithstanding those objections, Defendants produced documents in response to the
request. (ECF No. 148 at 27, 33-74, 105-13.) Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response on the
ground that their production is incomplete. His objection is premised on: (1.) the absence of medical
notes that Mr. Bakambia states should have been generated in response to kites6 he sent to medical
services staff; and (2.) the absence of medical notes by Dr. Craane, a doctor employed by Centurion
to provide medical services to prisoners at MCF-Stillwater (ECF No. 77 at 3; ECF No. 1 at 13), from
a set of specific dates in 2023. Mr. Bakambia also asserts that defense counsel improperly delayed
production of responsive documents by providing him a tranche of over 500 documents in a
supplemental production that included several duplicates and records from 2020, 2021, and 2022,
which he contends are non-responsive.
The Court denies the Motion as to Request for Production 8. Mr. Bakambia’s assertion that
medical notes are missing is speculative and conclusory. Mr. Bakambia believes medical notes
should have been generated in response to his kites because some of the medical records Defendants
produced reference kites he has sent to medical staff, and because DOC policies require staff to
make records of their responses to kites. But the mere fact that some medical records reference kites
does not mean that every kite necessarily generates a medical record, nor do the policies Mr.
Bakambia cites require that responses to kites be medical records. Additionally, the mere existence
of DOC policies does not necessarily mean that employees always follow them. The Court also
disagrees with the contention that Defendants’ production of medical records from 2020, 2021, and
2022 was improper, since Mr. Bakambia specifically requested records about medical appointment
scheduling activities during those time periods (ECF No. 171-1 at 11), and in any event, Mr.
Bakambia has not shown that any delay resulting from any production of information he did not
belong to Dr. Craane. (See ECF No. 148 at 34.)
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 10 of 24

intend to request unfairly prejudiced him. 	Finally, Mr. Bakambia states in conclusory fashion that
notes by Dr. Craane are missing for a variety of dates. He offers no basis to infer that Dr. Craane
wrote notes on those dates, and therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants have failed to
diligently search for documents in their possession or control.
H. 	Request for Production 9
Request for Production 9 requests records of Mr. Bakambia being scheduled with a medical
provider to provide an alternative treatment plan to the one Dr. Todd recommended on June 21,
2023. 	(ECF No. 171-1 at 10.) 	Defendants stated that they were unable to locate responsive
documents, but that they would supplement their production if necessary. (ECF No. 148 at 6.) Mr.
Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response, but his grounds for objection are unclear. Mr. Bakambia
requested a particular set of documents, and Defendants could not find anything responsive to his
request. 	Defendants cannot be compelled to produce documents that do not exist. 	The Court
therefore denies the Motion as to Request for Production 9.
I. 	Request for Production 10
Request for Production 10 requests records showing the DOC requested a written notice from
Centurion attesting to its failure to comply with Dr. Shicker’s order that Mr. Bakambia have a
follow-up appointment with a neurologist, as Dr. Todd allegedly requested on June 21, 2023. (ECF
No. 171-1 at 11.) This request is premised on Mr. Bakambia’s assertion that Centurion failed to
comply with Dr. Shicker’s order and that Centurion’s contractual obligations require it to provide the
DOC with written notice of compliance failures. Defendants responded that they were unable to
locate responsive documents and disputed Mr. Bakambia’s assertion that he did not have the
neurologist appointment as Dr. Todd requested. (ECF No. 148 at 7.) Mr. Bakambia’s objections
6 Kites are written requests or complaints that prisoners can send to various prison staff.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 11 of 24

assume the documents he wants exist. 	Because Defendants have stated they cannot find any
responsive documents and Mr. Bakambia proffers no specific evidence showing that they exist, the
Court denies the Motion as to Request for Production 10.
J. 	Request for Production 11
Request for Production 11 requests all “scheduling activities and communications” by
Centurion and the DOC concerning his initial appointment with Dr. Todd in 2022 and the reason
why it was initially cancelled. (ECF No. 171-1 at 11.) Defendants raised boilerplate vagueness and
relevance objections. 	(ECF No. 148 at 7-8.) 	Notwithstanding those objections, Defendants
produced documents that they claimed were responsive to the request. These documents include
what appears to be an internal communication between medical professionals discussing Mr.
Bakambia’s initial symptoms. Defendants also produced an “Off-Site Scheduling Log Entry Form”
related to Mr. Bakambia’s initial appointment with Dr. Todd. 	(ECF No. 148 at 63-65.) 	Mr.
Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response on the ground that none of the produced documents state
the reason his appointment was initially cancelled. (ECF No. 148 at 7-8.)
The Court grants the Motion as to Request for Production 11 insofar as Defendants must
inquire with Centurion whether it possesses responsive documents and produce anything resulting
from that inquiry. 	See Prokosch, 193 F.R.D. at 636. 	However, the Court disagrees with Mr.
Bakambia that Defendants’ production to date has not been responsive. The documents produced by
Defendants show the reason why Mr. Bakambia’s appointment with Mr. Todd was initially
scheduled and include the internal forms the DOC appears to have used to schedule that
appointment. 	The mere fact that Defendants did not locate documents that provide the exact
information Mr. Bakambia seeks is not a ground for compelling production. Mr. Bakambia also fails
to offer compelling evidence that demonstrates Defendants possess the exact documents he seeks.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 12 of 24

The Court therefore denies the Motion as to Request for Production 11 insofar as Mr. Bakambia
seeks to compel Defendants to produce additional documents that do not exist.
K. 	Request for Production 12
Request for Production 12 seeks the same set of documents that Request for Production 11
seeks, except it asks for documents in the Noran Neurological Clinic’s possession. 	Defendants
raised the same objections and further objected insofar as this request seeks documents not in
Defendants’ possession or control. (ECF No. 148 at 8.) The Court denies the Motion as to Request
for Production 12 because, as previously stated, there is no legal basis for the Court to compel
Defendants to request documents from the Noran Neurological Clinic.
L. 	Request for Production 13
Request for Production 13 seeks records of any Centurion provider who “suggested that the
already approved Neurologist follow-up appointment requested on June 21, 2023” should be
cancelled because it was medically unnecessary. (ECF No. 171-1 at 12.) Defendants responded
with boilerplate objections and stated that they were unable to locate responsive documents and
would supplement their response if necessary. (ECF No. 148 at 8.) Mr. Bakambia’s grounds for
objecting to Defendants’ response are unclear. (ECF No. 162 at 20-21.) The Court takes Defendants
at their word and denies the Motion as to Request for Production 13.
M. 	Request for Production 14
Request for Production 14 requests records of all scheduling activities kept by Centurion, the
DOC, and the Noran Neurological Clinic regarding follow-up appointments with Mr. Bakambia’s
neurosurgeon and neurologist as ordered by Dr. Jennifer Brooks on March 21, 2024. (ECF No. 171-
1 at 12.) 	Defendants raised boilerplate objections based on vagueness, argumentativeness, and
burden. (ECF No. 148 at 9.) They also objected to this request insofar as it seeks documents not in
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 13 of 24

their possession. Defendants produced medical records and more “Off-Site Scheduling Log Entry”
forms that detailed the scheduling process for appointments ordered by Dr. Brooks. (ECF No. 148 at
33-62, 66-74.) Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response on the ground that Defendants have
not produced documents in the possession of Centurion and the Noran Neurological Clinic. (ECF
No. 162 at 21.) For the reasons previously stated, the Court grants the Motion as to Request for
Production 14 insofar as Defendants must request responsive documents from Centurion and
produce any documents resulting from that inquiry. The Court denies the Motion insofar as Mr.
Bakambia seeks documents in the possession of the Noran Neurological Clinic.
N. 	Request for Production 15
Request for Production 15 requests records of “every notification(s) for appointment(s)
times” for approved follow-up appointments with Dr. Todd that Centurion sent to the DOC between
June 21, 2023 and March 20, 2024. 	(ECF No. 171-1 at 12-13.) 	This request is based on a
contractual provision in Centurion’s contract with the DOC, which requires Centurion to notify DOC
staff regarding appointment times with off-site specialty care providers. Defendants responded with
boilerplate objections based on vagueness, argumentativeness, and burden. (ECF No. 148 at 10.)
They also objected to the request insofar as it seeks documents not in their possession.
Notwithstanding these objections, Defendants produced: (1.) medical records from Dr. Todd’s June
21, 2023 appointment; and (2.) a Centurion-branded “Consultation and Specialty Services Request
Form” that Dr. Craane completed on July 6, 2023. (ECF No. 148 at 34-42.) The form requests a
pain clinic consultation for Mr. Bakambia and notes that neurology recommended an occipital nerve
ablation. Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response on the ground that the documents produced
are not responsive. He also asserts there are responsive documents that Defendants have failed to
produce. In support of this assertion, he cites Defendant Oberembt’s responses to two kites he sent
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 14 of 24

in September and November 2023. 	In her response to the November kite, she stated that Mr.
Bakambia’s neurology follow-up appointment had been scheduled. (ECF No. 151 at 9.)
The Court grants the Motion as to Request for Production 15. The Court does not agree that
Defendants’ production is entirely non-responsive, since the Consultation and Specialty Services
Request Form may be part of a larger scheduling process. That said, Mr. Bakambia cites specific
evidence that his neurology appointment had been scheduled, and there is substantial evidence in the
record that the DOC and/or Centurion track the scheduling of these visits using the Off-Site
Scheduling Log Entry Form. (See ECF No. 148 at 63-74.) Mr. Bakambia thus proffers a basis to
infer that the requested scheduling records likely exist. There is nothing in the record indicating
Defendants produced any scheduling documents that align with Defendant Oberembt’s statement
that a neurology follow-up appointment for Mr. Bakambia had been scheduled in November 2023.
It is possible that Defendants have not produced those documents because they do not exist. If that
is the case, then after conducting a diligent search, Defendants shall notify Mr. Bakambia that they
were unable to locate any documents responsive to his request as it relates to Ms. Oberembt’s
November 2023 statement.
Defendants argue that it is “unclear what additional documents [Mr.] Bakambia seeks given
that the follow-up requested on June 21, 2023, occurred on September 8, 2023, and documents
reflecting this were produced.” (ECF No. 170 at 17.) Though Defendants’ factual contention may
be true, Mr. Bakambia clarified through meetings with defense counsel that his request included
documents corresponding with Ms. Oberembt’s November 2023 response to Mr. Bakambia’s kite.
(ECF No. 151 at 5.) There is no indication that Defendants ever produced documents responsive to
that clarified request or informed Mr. Bakambia that no such documents were found. The Court
therefore directs Defendants to search diligently for this subset of documents and to produce them or
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 15 of 24

inform Mr. Bakambia that no such documents were found.
O. 	Interrogatory 1
Interrogatory 1 asks for the names of the corrections officers who: (1.) “called the laundry on
Wednesday 6/12/24”; (2.) spoke with Officer Oliveras regarding Mr. Bakambia’s migraine
medication and other property; and (3.) went to the laundry area. 	(ECF No. 171-1 at 1-2.)
Defendants responded with boilerplate objections based on vagueness, argumentativeness, and
relevance. (ECF No. 148 at 14.) Notwithstanding those objections, Defendants stated that after
“diligent inquiry,” they were unable to identify the staff member or members who “called the
laundry on Wednesday 6/12/24.” They further stated that discovery was ongoing and that they
would supplement their answer if necessary. Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response on the
grounds that: (1.) the corrections officer who aided defense counsel is “untrustworthy” based on Mr.
Bakambia’s experience litigating a different unrelated case; and (2.) documents produced by
Defendants prove that Corrections Officer Michelle Atlas, who wrote a report about the incident on
June 12, 2024, knows who called the laundry on that day. (ECF NO. 162 at 23-24, citing ECF No.
149 at 14-15.)
The Court denies the Motion as to Interrogatory 1. 	Mr. Bakambia’s first argument is
meritless because there is no evidence in the record in this action showing that any corrections
officer who may have assisted defense counsel in preparing Defendants’ responses is untrustworthy.
Mr. Bakambia’s second argument fares no better. Though the documents may show that Ms. Atlas
had some personal knowledge about the events on June 12, 2024, Mr. Bakambia does not provide
any evidence that Defendants failed to seek information from her. Moreover, defense counsel told
Mr. Bakambia during a meet-and-confer concerning Mr. Bakambia’s discovery requests that answers
to Mr. Bakambia’s questions may not be obtainable because the individuals who were present have
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 16 of 24

forgotten the specifics of what occurred. Given the lack of evidence to show that any DOC official
should remember who “called the laundry on Wednesday 6/12/24” and Defendants’ representation
that they have made a diligent inquiry, the Court cannot compel Defendants to provide more
information with respect to Interrogatory 1.
P. 	Interrogatory 3
Interrogatory 3 asks for Officer Oliveras’ job description with regard to how he manages
prisoners’ property when they are escorted to and released from segregation. (ECF No. 171-1 at 2.)
Defendants initially responded by citing documents signed by Officer Oliveras, which list his job
responsibilities in broad terms, and stating that “when an incarcerated person is released from
segregation, they must pack their property down so that it fits into two property bins.” (ECF No.
148 at 15, 75-83.) Defendants later supplemented their response with a more detailed explanation of
MCF-Stillwater’s process for inventorying and then returning prisoner property before and after
segregation transfers. (ECF No. 149 at 7.) Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response because it
fails to explicitly state whether Officer Oliveras’ job responsibilities involve the inventorying of
prisoner property during the segregation transfer process. (ECF No. 162 at 24-25.)
The Court grants the Motion as to Interrogatory 3. The document produced by Defendants
state that Officer Oliveras must adhere to established DOC procedures. 	(ECF No. 148 at 76.)
Though it may be a fair assumption that this duty includes adherence to the property procedures
Defendants detailed in their response to Interrogatory 3, Defendants’ response relies on inferences
without definitively answering the question asked. Officer Oliveras’ property inventory duties are
central to Mr. Bakambia’s claim against him, and it is clear from his Motion that Mr. Bakambia
wants a clear statement of whether Officer Oliveras is required to perform these duties. Therefore,
the Court directs Defendants to provide an unambiguous response specifically addressing Officer
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 17 of 24

Oliveras’s duties with respect to inventorying and returning prisoner property before and after
segregation transfers.
Q. 	Interrogatory 7
Interrogatory 7 asks Defendants to state that on Tuesday, June 11, 2024, all inmates released
from segregation from 7 A.M. to 2 P.M. were brought to the laundry area where Officer Oliveras
works, and that Officer Oliveras returned their property to them. (ECF No. 171-1 at 3.) Defendants
responded with boilerplate objections based on vagueness, relevance, and argumentativeness. (ECF
No. 148 at 17.) 	Notwithstanding those objections, Defendants answered, “DOC staff provided
property to inmates on June 11, 2024, who were released from segregation in accordance with DOC
policies and procedures.” Mr. Bakambia objects to this on the ground that Defendants’ answer lacks
specificity as to Officer Oliveras. (ECF No. 162 at 25-26.)
The Court agrees Defendants must provide an answer that is specific to Officer Oliveras and
therefore grants the Motion as to Interrogatory 7. 	If Defendants are not sure whether Officer
Oliveras returned inventoried property to all inmates released from segregation from 7 A.M. to 2
P.M. on June 11, 2024, then they can respond accordingly.
R. 	Interrogatory 8
Interrogatory 8 asks Defendants to state whether, on June 12, 2024, Officer Oliveras: (1.)
“did not issue a pass to Mr. Bakambia to report to laundry for his property”; (2.) conducted linen
exchange that morning at Mr. Bakambia’s living unit; and (3.) told Mr. Bakambia that he would call
him down to the laundry area after the end of linen exchange, but ultimately failed to do so. (ECF
No. 171-1 at 3-4.) 	Defendants responded with boilerplate objections based on vagueness and
argumentativeness. (ECF No. 148 at 18.) Notwithstanding those objections, Defendants stated that:
(1.) Officer Oliveras “has no memory of this specific exchange, but that he was not aware that [Mr.]
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 18 of 24

Bakambia had medication in his property”; and (2.) “property retrieval was conducted pursuant to
DOC policies and procedures.” 	Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ answer because: (1.) the
portion of Defendants’ answer concerning medication is a non-sequitur; and (2.) Officer Oliveras
could not have forgotten the exchange. (ECF No. 162 at 26.) Though the Court agrees that the
answer’s reference to medication appears to be out of place, it cannot compel Officer Oliveras to
recount what he allegedly cannot remember. For this reason, the Court denies the Motion as to
Interrogatory 8.
S. 	Interrogatory 10
Interrogatory 10 asks Defendants to state that on June 12, 2024: (1.) Officer Oliveras
provided property to prisoners released from segregation after he completed linen exchange; and (2.)
Sergeant Nyembwe went to the laundry area to retrieve Mr. Bakambia’s prescription medication but
could not find it because Officer Oliveras had moved it. 	(ECF No. 148 at 18-19.) 	Defendants
provided boilerplate objections and then gave the same response to Interrogatory 10 as they did to
Interrogatory 8, that: (1.) Officer Oliveras “has no memory of this specific exchange, but that he was
not aware that [Mr.] Bakambia had medication in his property”; and (2.) “property retrieval was
conducted pursuant to DOC policies and procedures.” (ECF No. 148 at 18-19.) Mr. Bakambia
objects to Defendants’ response on the ground that Defendants failed to make a diligent inquiry with
Sergeant Nyembwe to answer this interrogatory. (ECF No. 162 at 26.) Defendants’ response omits
any mention of Sergeant Nyembwe and only states that Officer Oliveras does not remember the
events of June 12. The Court therefore grants the Motion as to Interrogatory 10 insofar as it asks
Defendants to confirm: (1.) whether Sergeant Nyembwe went to the laundry area to retrieve Mr.
Bakambia’s prescription medication; (2.) whether Sergeant Nyembwe was able to locate the
medication; and (3.) if the Sergeant was unable to locate it, whether it was because Officer Oliveras
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 19 of 24

had moved it. If Defendants are unable to confirm or deny some or any of this information, they
may respond accordingly.
T. 	Interrogatory 12
Mr. Bakambia asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce a copy of his first set of
interrogatory requests because he contends he served an Interrogatory 12 on Defendants, while
Defendants assert no such interrogatory was served on them. (ECF No. 162 at 26-27.) Defendants
filed a copy of Mr. Bakambia’s interrogatories as an exhibit to their Response to his motion. (ECF
No. 171-1 at 4, showing the interrogatories skip from Interrogatory 11 to Interrogatory 13, and no
pages appear to be missing.) Defendants also filed a certificate of service stating they mailed a copy
of the exhibit to Mr. Bakambia on February 26, 2026. (ECF No. 172.) Therefore, Defendants have
already complied with Mr. Bakambia’s demand.
Moreover, evidence in the record shows that Defendants responded to Mr. Bakambia’s
intended Interrogatory 12 in their responses to his second set of discovery requests on December 22,
2025. (ECF No. 189 at 14.) They knew the content of Interrogatory 12 because Mr. Bakambia sent
it to them in a November 17, 2025 letter that summarized the meeting he had with defense counsel
concerning his first set of discovery requests. (ECF No. 151 at 1, 7.) Therefore, not only does Mr.
Bakambia appear to be mistaken about his own discovery requests, but his objection makes little
sense, since Defendants ultimately responded to it. 	For all these reasons, the Court denies Mr.
Bakambia’s Motion as to Interrogatory 12.
U. 	Interrogatory 15
Interrogatory 15 seeks a description of Ms. Reid and Ms. Oberembt’s job duties with regard
to providing care to prisoners and coordinating care with offsite specialty service providers. (ECF
No. 171-1 at 5.) Defendants responded with boilerplate objections based on vagueness, relevance,
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 20 of 24

and burden. 	(ECF No. 148 at 21.) 	Notwithstanding those objections, Defendants produced
documents signed by Ms. Reid and Ms. Oberembt listing their job responsibilities. (Id. at 84-104.)
Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response on the ground that Ms. Oberembt signed the job
responsibilities document on August 26, 2024, even though she had been working at MCF-Stillwater
for years at that time. (ECF No. 162 at 28.)
The Court denies the Motion as to Interrogatory 15 for two reasons. First, the document Mr.
Bakambia challenges is plainly responsive as it states that the purpose of Ms. Oberembt’s role is to
“collaborate and coordinate work with primary specialty consult and referral coordinator to ensure
timely entry, follow up and coordination with relation to specialty consult appointments, delivery of
nursing and medical services to the incarcerated person population.” (ECF No. 148 at 97.) Second,
Mr. Bakambia’s request appears to seek information about Ms. Oberembt’s ongoing job
responsibilities. 	Defendants were not required to provide information about her past job
responsibilities because Mr. Bakambia did not ask for a historical job description relating to any
particular period of time.
V. 	Interrogatory 18
Interrogatory 18 seeks information about the DOC and Centurion’s process for tracking
scheduling activities for specialty medical services and requests documents related to that process.
(ECF No. 171-1 at 6.) Defendants responded with boilerplate objections related to vagueness and
argumentativeness. 	(ECF No. 148 at 22.) 	Defendants also objected on the ground that it is an
interrogatory that “improperly” seeks documents. Notwithstanding those objections, Defendants
stated that “a scheduling log is utilized to track off-site appointments” and cited to copies of the
“Off-Site Scheduling Log Entry Form” produced in response to Mr. Bakambia’s document requests
(id. at 63-74). Mr. Bakambia objects to Defendants’ response on the basis that they did not request
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 21 of 24

documents from Centurion. Mr. Bakambia’s objection is that certain documents were not produced,
but “[i]nterrogatories are not the appropriate vehicle for seeking the production of documents.”
Amin v. Flagstone Hospitality Mgmt. LLC, No. 03-cv-1181 (JRT/JSM), 2005 WL 8162950, at *7 (D.
Minn. Jan. 3, 2005). The Court therefore denies the Motion as to Interrogatory 18.
W. 	Credibility Assessment
Finally, Mr. Bakambia asks the Court to “assess the credibility of Defendants, their counsel,
responses to discoveries, including officials who helped responding to those discoveries.” (ECF No.
162 at 30.) The Court does not consider the credibility of parties’ discovery responses in a motion to
compel. See Ditter v. Nebraska Dep’t of Corr. Servs., No. , 2018 WL 2184454, at *10 (D. Neb. May
11, 2018) (quoting Annabel v. Heyns, 2014 WL 1207802, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2014)) (“The
purpose of a motion to compel discovery is not to challenge the trustfulness of the response but
rather to compel a party to answer the interrogatory.”); Hickman v. Silva, No. C-12-209, 2012 WL
4973041, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2012) (“Plaintiff quibbles with the veracity of the response …
that is not a basis for a motion to compel.”); Heaton v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 8:06-cv-2, 2007 WL
295609, at *1 (D. Neb. Jan. 29, 2007) (“Plaintiff is merely challenging the factual accuracies of
defendant’s responses … the court will not resolve factual challenges in a motion to compel.”). The
Motion is therefore denied insofar as Mr. Bakambia asks the Court to assess the credibility of
Defendants’ responses to his discovery requests and compel alternative responses. The Motion is
also denied insofar as Mr. Bakambia’s Motion seeks sanctions. 	Aside from Mr. Bakambia’s
conclusory allegations, there is no evidence that defense counsel, Defendants, or any other person
associated with this litigation has lied to Mr. Bakambia or the Court.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings here, IT IS HEREBY
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 22 of 24

ORDERED that Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia’s Motion to Compel Discovery Disclosures; and
Motion for Credibility Assessment (ECF No. 147) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART as follows:
1. 	Defendants Alexandria Hart, Christine Oberembt, and Michael Oliveras shall request
documents from Centurion of Minnesota, LLC responsive to the following document
requests: 5, 11, 14, and 15. If no responsive documents are located, Defendants must
provide a statement attesting to that conclusion.
2. 	Defendants shall conduct a diligent search and produce documents responsive to the
following document requests: 7 and 15. If no responsive documents are located,
Defendants must provide a statement attesting to that conclusion.
3. 	Defendants shall provide an unambiguous answer to Interrogatory 3 concerning
Officer Oliveras’ job responsibilities as they relate to the inventorying of prisoners’
property.
4. 	Defendants shall provide an answer to Interrogatory 7 that states whether Officer
Oliveras returned inventoried property to all inmates released from segregation from
7 A.M. to 2 P.M. on June 11, 2024. If Defendants lack an adequate basis to answer,
they may respond accordingly.
5. 	Defendants shall provide an answer to Interrogatory 10 that addresses:
a. 	Whether Sergeant Nyembwe went to the laundry area to retrieve Mr.
Bakambia’s prescription medication;
b. 	Whether Sergeant Nyembwe was able to locate the medication; and
c. 	If Sergeant Nyembwe was unable to locate the medication, whether it was
because Officer Oliveras had moved it.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 23 of 24

d. 	If Defendants are unable to confirm or deny some or any of this information,
they may respond accordingly.
6. 	The Motion is denied in all other respects.
Dated: May 8, 2026 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 211 Filed 05/08/26 Page 24 of 24