Liberty et al v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
CHARLENE LIBERTY, et al., 	:
Plaintiffs, 	:
:
v. 	: 	C.A. No. 19-573JJM
:
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT 	:
OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 	:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
This putative class action addresses the constitutional and federal statutory limitations on
the use of placement in restrictive housing/solitary confinement by the Rhode Island Department
of Corrections (“RIDOC”) to sanction and manage the conduct of prisoners/detainees who have
been identified as suffering from serious and persistent mental illness (“SPMI”). Now pending
before the Court on referral to me for determination is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. ECF No. 43.
The motion challenges Defendants’ redactions of what they contend is irrelevant,
marginally relevant and/or not requested information in certain produced documents – restrictive
housing reports, prescription lists, minutes of meetings attended by health care staff at which
restrictive housing was discussed, and documentation of the use of force. Invoking Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1), Defendants argue that the challenged redactions conceal personal identifying
information, highly confidential medical/mental health information and other sensitive
information regarding persons who are outside the scope of what is relevant and proportional to
the needs of the case; Defendants contend that the redactions are appropriately based on
substantial privacy and institutional safety and security concerns. Defendants also point out that
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
the discovery Plaintiffs seek would vastly expand the scope (and therefore the expense and
complexity) of this case far beyond the claims asserted in the Class Action Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and the defenses raised in their Amended Answer. See ECF
No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”); ECF No. 19 (“Answer” or “Ans.”).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ unusually extensive filings1 and having held a
lengthy hearing on the motion, I find that Plaintiff’s Complaint raises an important issue (the
allegedly inappropriate use by prison officials of solitary confinement to sanction and manage
the non-volitional conduct that is caused by identified SPMI), albeit one that has been at stake in
other cases that were already pending when this case was filed. I further find that this case has
not launched a roving audit of every aspect of the Rhode Island prison system generally or of
how the Rhode Island prison system addresses mental illness in all its manifestations, as
Plaintiffs’ experts have mistakenly described it. See ECF No. 60-3 ¶ 10 (Plaintiffs’ prison
conditions expert avers that the scope of his engagement is to “gather information about how
corrections is administered in restrictive housing units and in RIDOC generally”); ECF No. 60-2
¶ 8 (Plaintiffs’ mental health expert avers that his task is to “gather information about how
mental health care is provided in restrictive housing units and in RIDOC generally”). Based on
my findings and for the reasons stated below, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek the unredaction of
information that is within the scope of their Complaint, their motion to compel is granted. To the
extent that the information sought strays beyond what is both squarely relevant to the claims in
the Complaint and the defenses in the Answer and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the limited issue at stake in the action, the very significant privacy and institutional
1 Plaintiffs filed a total of more than 250 pages of material in support of their motion to compel. Defendants
presented almost 250 pages in opposition.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
security concerns in play, as well as the other factors listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), the
motion is denied.
I. 	Background
Plaintiffs’ Complaint targets the existing policies, procedures and practices of RIDOC in
seeking declaratory relief. It is forward-looking in seeking injunctive relief. It does not request
money damages. The pleading alleges that the claims are maintainable as a class action pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1-2), although Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class
certification.
A concept that is pivotal to the case (and to the Court’s determination of Plaintiffs’
motion to compel) is “Serious and Persistent Mental Illness” or “SPMI.” Compl. ¶ 2. “SPMI,”
as used in this case, is defined in the Complaint: “For purposes of this Complaint, the term
‘SPMI’ refers to the definition used by RIDOC.” Compl. ¶ 77 (emphasis added). The pleading
acknowledges that SPMI as defined by RIDOC is more limited than what Plaintiffs allege to be
“the commonly used definition of ‘serious mental illness’ (SMI) that is generally utilized in the
community, correctional institutions, mental health standards and court cases.” Id. ¶ 78. As
framed by the pleadings, RIDOC’s definition of SPMI looks at an individual’s diagnoses (e.g.,
schizophrenia, other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder and
borderline personality disorder) and the extent and duration of functional limitations due to the
diagnosed impairment, without regard to whether the limitation is attenuated by treatment. Ans.
¶ 77.
Named as Plaintiffs are six individuals who claim that each of them was known to be
suffering from SPMI while in the custody of RIDOC, yet each was placed in solitary
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
confinement2 in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well
as in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and § 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 18-29, 79. These six are suing both individually and on behalf
of a putative class of “RIDOC prisoners and detainees identified as SPMI by RIDOC who now,
or will in the future be, subject to solitary confinement.” Id. ¶ 9 (emphasis added). As to four of
the six, RIDOC admits that the individual was identified by RIDOC as SPMI. Ans. ¶¶ 18, 22,
24, 26. As to two of the six, RIDOC denies that it identified the individual as SPMI. Ans. ¶¶ 20,
28.
Also joined as a Plaintiff is a not-for-profit Rhode Island corporation known as Disability
Rights Rhode Island (“DRRI”); it brings this action on behalf of constituents with SPMI for the
purpose of both eliminating the use, and ameliorating harmful conditions, of solitary
confinement for people with SPMI. Compl. ¶¶ 30, 39. To establish standing, DRRI alleges that
it is designated by federal law (42 U.S.C. § 10801, et seq.) to pursue legal remedies “to ensure
that the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected” without the participation of its
individual constituents. 42 U.S.C. § 10801(b)(1); see Compl. ¶¶ 30-43. DRRI is focused on the
“ongoing needs and conditions of confinement of prisoners and detainees with SPMI,” alleged to
include the individual Plaintiffs and a group of “constituents” identified in the Complaint by
initials as “individual . . . prisoners or detainees who have SPMI.” Compl. ¶ 38. DRRI alleges
that it “brings this matter on behalf of individuals with SPMI.” Compl. ¶ 41.
Defendants are RIDOC and senior prison officials, who are sued in their official
capacities. Compl. ¶¶ 44-47.
2 RIDOC uses “restrictive housing” to refer to what the Complaint labels as “[s]olitary [c]onfinement.” Compl. ¶ 9.
As used in this case, the terms appear to be synonymous. Id.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
As pled, the Complaint is laser focused on RIDOC’s alleged practice of using solitary
confinement to punish and manage the behavior of individuals identified by RIDOC with SPMI,
which behavior is alleged to be symptomatic of the mental illness. Compl. ¶ 149. The
Complaint relies on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to allege that RIDOC’s approach to solitary confinement
(including isolation, lack of exercise, fresh air and sunlight, sensory deprivation and lack of
meaningful activity) for individuals with SPMI violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment, because it is well
known that such treatment undermines these individuals’ health and exacerbates the illness that
is the root cause of the conduct. Id. ¶¶ 124-33. The Complaint also invokes the ADA to claim
that prisoners/detainees with SPMI are disabled; instead of appropriate treatment, persons with
SPMI are excluded from services and programming that are made available to those who are not
disabled due to the use of solitary confinement to respond to their disability-related behaviors.
Id. ¶¶ 134-52. The Complaint relies on § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to claim that RIDOC
deprives incarcerated individuals with SPMI of an integrated setting appropriate to their needs by
placing them instead in solitary confinement, which is used as a management technique to
address disability-related conduct. Id. ¶¶ 153-62.
In reliance on the Constitution, ADA and § 504, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that
solitary confinement is per se prohibited for an individual with SPMI; to alter conditions of
confinement for individuals with SPMI to eliminate isolation, sensory deprivation, and lack of
contact; to expand RIDOC’s residential treatment unit (“RTU”)3 to accommodate all individuals
with SPMI who otherwise would be placed in solitary confinement; and to appoint independent
experts and retain jurisdiction until future compliance is reasonably assured. Compl. at 56-58;
3 Since 2018, RIDOC has maintained the RTU to treat mental illness for “a limited number of male prisoners with
SPMI.” Compl. ¶ 87. The Complaint alleges that this mental health treatment unit is not adequate. Id. at ¶¶ 87-94.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
see ¶ 150 (“Solitary confinement is inappropriate for prisoners and detainees with SPMI because
it undermines their mental health and well-being – making it far less likely that they will ever be
able to comply with prison rules and other requirements.”).
Before discovery began (and requiring significant involvement of the Court because the
initial protective order proposals were unworkable), a Protective Order was entered permitting
the designation of documents as confidential and confidential/attorneys and experts only. ECF
No. 30. Since discovery began, Plaintiffs have propounded 145 document requests in three
separate sets. ECF No. 53-1 at 2. Defendants have been responding to Plaintiffs’ extensive
document requests by producing (as of mid-January 2022) more than 40,000 pages of material.
Id. at n.1.
II. 	The Motion to Compel
The motion to compel targets Defendants’ production of documents pursuant to the
following Document Requests:
• 	Document Request 2 seeks health care records for the named Plaintiffs.
• 	Document Request 12 seeks minutes of meetings attended by any health care staff
at which the mental health of RIDOC prisoners/detainees in restrictive housing
and RIDOC procedures regarding the use of restrictive housing for
prisoners/detainees with mental health issues was discussed, among other topics.
• 	Document Requests 57, 70 and 74 seek documents sufficient to show the number
of all prisoners/detainees in restrictive housing, as well as the number and the
duration of confinement for those in restrictive housing with SPMI.
• 	Document Requests 58-59 seek documents related to the use of force on the
named Plaintiffs and the use of force in any restrictive housing unit or the RTU.
• 	Document Request 102 seeks documents sufficient to show the total number of
prisoners/detainees receiving mental health treatment.
ECF Nos. 43-1 at 3-4; 53-1 at 2-3, 17. In response to each, Defendants have produced a
substantial set of responsive documents.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
A. 	Prescription Lists
As relevant to the motion to compel, for Document Requests 2 (as to the named
Plaintiffs)4 and 102, the production includes RIDOC’s prescriptions lists, which have the patient
names, identifying numbers, the name of the prescribing physician and the specific medication
and dosage for each prescription for all persons in RIDOC’s custody. Apart from the named
Plaintiffs, Defendants correctly point out that Plaintiffs have not propounded a request
specifically asking for production of these prescription lists. ECF No. 53-1 at 17. The lists were
produced in response to Document Request 102, which sought documents sufficient to show the
number of prisoners/detainees receiving mental health treatment and medication. Id. In
producing them as documents sufficient to show the requested information, Defendants redacted
the lists to conceal the personal identifying information regarding all patients other than those
who are designated as SPMI. Thus, Plaintiffs can see every prescription, ranging from nasal
spray to testosterone, at the same time that the privacy of the non-SPMI patients who were
prescribed a specific medication is protected.
In seeking to unredact everything on the prescription lists, Plaintiffs sidestep their failure
to ask for such records and contend that all of the content is relevant by pointing out that some of
the medicines prescribed for non-SPMI patients are antipsychotics that are “predominantly used
to treat persons with a serious mental illness.” ECF No. 43-5 ¶ 10 (Decl. of Dr. Jeffrey
Metzner). They buttress the argument with declarations of six non-SPMI inmates who aver that
they were prescribed antipsychotic medication to treat diagnosed mental health conditions. ECF
4 One matter addressed in Plaintiffs’ motion is Defendants’ redaction of responsive health care information as
requested by Document Request 2 regarding the two named Plaintiffs who RIDOC contends are not SPMI. In its
opposition and again during the hearing, Defendants agreed that any such redactions will be removed. Similarly, to
the extent that identifying or related information for these named Plaintiffs appears in other documents, such as the
restrictive housing reports, the Court finds that all such references are relevant, and the Protective Order is more
than sufficient to protect privacy. As Defendants agreed, all information related to the named Plaintiffs will be
unredacted.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Nos. 44-10; 43-1 at 15. Defendants counter that there are many complex and individualized
reasons why a RIDOC prescriber might write such a prescription for a patient who nevertheless
does not meet RIDOC’s criteria for SPMI. Defendants also lay out in summary fashion the
factually complex and individualized circumstances underpinning the non-SPMI designation of
the six inmates who submitted declarations. ECF No. 54-2 ¶¶ 4-38 (Decl. of RIDOC Acting
Clinical Director of Behavioral Health, Caitlin Bouchard); ECF No. 53-7 ¶¶ 17-22 (Decl. of Dr.
Joseph Penn).
B. 	Meeting Minutes
For Document Request 12, Defendants produced the minutes of meetings at which the
RIDOC warden, deputy warden and various medical staff had individualized discussions of the
intensely private medical circumstances of prisoners/detainees discussed by name. For example,
the minutes of one meeting include a discussion of how to manage an individual with SPMI who
had become distraught regarding a recent family event, which is specifically referenced. ECF
No. 44-6; see also ECF No. 53-1 at 20-21. These meeting minutes are redacted to cover up such
discussions of the health care and related private concerns of non-SPMI prisoners and detainees.5
C. 	Restrictive Housing Reports
For Document Requests 57, 70 and 74, Defendants produced restrictive housing reports.
The reports contain a detailed catalog of every instance of placement in restrictive housing
during a backward-looking period, including the identifying number, name and race of the
individual, the date and length of the placement, a description of the precipitating conduct (e.g.,
“[p]rovoking a fight,” “SMUGGLING Category 1 Contraband INTO the Facility”) and how the
5 Plaintiffs’ brief is not clear whether meeting minute redactions cover information related to named Plaintiffs who
RIDOC alleges are not SPMI. To the extent that they do, Defendants have already agreed to remove those
redactions. See n.4 supra.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
conduct was characterized under RIDOC’s conduct code (e.g., “HIGHEST(PREDATORY)”).
ECF No. 44-1. While the requests asked only for documents sufficient to show the number of all
prisoners/detainees in restrictive housing and the number and the duration of confinement for
those with SPMI, Defendants appear to have provided far more information than Plaintiffs had
requested. In so doing, they generally6 redacted all personal identifying information on the
restrictive housing entries that pertain to prisoners and detainees who are not SPMI, although in
some instances identifying information for those with SPMI was also redacted.
D. 	Use of Force
For Document Request 58, Defendants produced videos and documents pertaining to the
use of force on the named Plaintiffs, redacting only the names and identifying and other
information (including gang affiliation, social security numbers and medical information)
regarding other inmates and RIDOC staff involved in the incident. ECF No. 53-1 at 22. For
Document Request 59, which asked for documents related to the use of force in the restrictive
housing unit or the RTU, Defendants produced responsive records for individuals classified as
SPMI but redacted all names and identifying and other information for the SPMI inmate who is
the target of the use of force in these settings, as well as for any other inmate and RIDOC staff
involved in the incident. For use of force in the restrictive housing unit or the RTU pertaining to
individuals who are not SPMI, Defendants produced nothing.
E. 	Summary of Arguments
6 In a few instances, Defendants over- or under-redacted the restrictive housing reports. During the hearing,
Defendants agreed that any over-redactions would promptly be removed; for example, in some instances the
duration of confinement for non-SPMI prisoners/detainees could not be ascertained because the “confinement end”
column had been redacted. The under-redactions arose because reports for one month in 2018 and one month in
2019 were produced inadvertently without redaction. In the interest of expediency, I decline to order a claw back to
cure this error; instead, Plaintiffs may retain these two reports to use as exemplars of what the unredacted reports
look like, provided that they may not be used inappropriately to expand the scope of what is in issue.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
Plaintiffs now challenge all redactions, arguing (1) that any such redaction is per se
improper because the Court has entered a Protective Order, and (2) that the Complaint is not as
limited as Defendants contend, but rather that it challenges not just the use of solitary
confinement with prisoners and detainees identified as SPMI, but also could be interpreted as
challenging RIDOC’s approach to mental illness, including how it identifies who has SPMI. As
argued by Plaintiffs, they seek the additional discovery because it is necessary to permit them to
perform, on an inmate-by-inmate basis, an analysis of the medical and mental health treatment,
diagnoses, medications and symptoms of non-SPMI prisoners/detainees whom they “believe are
not properly designated,” ECF No. 57 at 2, to determine as to each whether he/she should have
been classified as SPMI, as well as to evaluate as to each, the degree with which he/she was
subjected to restrictive housing. To factually support this argument, Plaintiffs rely on the actual
number and percentage of RIDOC inmates who were classified as SPMI as of June 1, 2021 (165
persons or approximately 8%), by comparison with estimates in RIDOC’s public statements7 to
conclude that RIDOC is failing to designate as SPMI individuals whose mental illness should
have been classified as persistent and severe.
Defendants counter that Plaintiffs’ proffer that RIDOC has failed properly to identify
persons with SPMI is factually unfounded. More importantly in light of the scope of discovery
as limned by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), they point to the language of the Complaint and contend
7 If the question of whose mental illness should be categorized as SPMI had been put in issue by the Complaint, the
facts Plaintiffs now marshal are likely sufficient for the Court to find an allegation of under-classification plausible
for pleading purposes. For example, Plaintiffs point to a 2018 purchase order for psychiatric services in which
RIDOC stated that “[a]pproximately 25% of inmates” have “serious mental illness” and to a RIDOC website
statement that, in the past five years, the number of entering inmates with SPMI has increased, “with the number . . .
being approximately 15-20% at any given time.” ECF No. 43-6 at 2; ECF No. 43-9 at 3. On Reply, Plaintiffs
highlight a 2022 RIDOC estimate that 15-20% of persons in RIDOC’s custody have “serious mental illnesses.”
ECF No. 57 at 5 n.6. The problem is that under-classification of SPMI is not what this Complaint alleges. Further,
even if Plaintiffs had put under-classification in issue, it is far from clear that such an allegation would open the door
to discovery of information sufficient to conduct a mini-trial on the mental status of every RIDOC inmate who
conceivably has had mental health issues over a lookback period of many years, which is what Plaintiffs now seek.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
that it simply does not assert Plaintiffs’ newly concocted claim that RIDOC has under-classified
prisoners/detainees as SPMI. Focused on proportionality, they argue that such an expansion of
the case would necessitate starting discovery over and lead to an in-depth review of an endless
number of unconsenting inmates’ medical diagnoses and treatment, effectively turning the Court
into a reviewing board for RIDOC’s approach to mental health and its SPMI designations. They
ask the Court to find that their redactions are appropriately based on the irrelevancy or marginal
relevancy of what is private and often intensely confidential information, much of which also
implicates institutional safety and security.
III. 	Analysis and Rulings
Rule 26(b)(1) sets the scope of what should be produced in discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The touchstones for the scope of discovery are relevancy and
proportionality. Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe, Civil Action No. 21-2621 (RC/RMM), 2021 WL
4965567, at *2 n.2 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2021). This language is incorporated by reference into Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34, which deals with document requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). District courts have
“‘broad discretion to manage discovery matters.’” Shapiro v. Roger Williams Univ., C.A. No.
011-140-ML, 2012 WL 3581148, at *7 (D.R.I. Aug. 17, 2012) (quoting Heidelberg Americas,
Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakuscho, Ltd., 333 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 2003)), aff’d, No. 12-2105 (1st
Cir. Apr. 8, 2013).
A. 	Categorical Ban on Redactions
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel rests principally on the argument that, once any part of a
document is relevant, as long as there is a Protective Order, redactions for any reason except
privilege are categorically improper.
I decline to adopt this approach. This Court has routinely permitted redactions of
irrelevant or marginally relevant material as long as there is a reason beyond mere irrelevancy to
justify the redaction. E.g., Walker v. Wall, C.A. No. 10-178 S, 2010 WL 4903825, at *1-2
(D.R.I. Nov. 24, 2010) (permitting redaction of information in policies that could pose safety and
security risks to ACI employees and inmates if disclosed). As Walker notes, “[t]he First Circuit,
encouraging the accommodation of the competing interests inherent in discovery disagreements
regarding sensitive information, has instructed courts to utilize mechanisms such as redaction or
protective orders in ruling on motions to compel.” Id. at *2; see McEvoy v. Hillsborough Cty.,
Civ. No. 09-cv-431-SM, 2011 WL 1813014, at *3, 8 (D.N.H. May 5, 2011) (mindful that
requesting party “proposed a protective order,” but producing party argued that protective order
was not sufficient to protect privacy of non-parties, court orders production of relevant “nonparty
inmate medical records, subject to redactions to remove identifying information”), motion for
reconsideration on other grounds granted in part and denied in part, No. 09-cv-431-SM, ECF No.
45 (D.N.H. May 31, 2011).
The only case from the District of Rhode Island cited by Plaintiffs to support their
categorical argument is Hasbro, Inc. v. Mikohn Gaming Corp., C.A. No. 05-106ML, 2006 WL
8456748 (D.R.I. Mar. 30, 2006), in which the Court overruled extensive redactions in business
records that were “based solely on relevancy grounds.” Id. at *1. Noting that courts have
generally not been receptive to the practice of unilateral document redactions on the basis of
relevancy objections alone, the Court found “no justifiable basis under these particular
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
circumstances for Defendant’s unilateral redaction of this document on grounds of irrelevancy.”
Id. at *2. Hasbro simply does not apply to the very different circumstances that the Court is
facing here where Defendants have redacted what they contend is not just irrelevant or
marginally relevant material but also is private and personal, as to much of it intensely so (such
as health care information and social security numbers) and/or implicates institutional safety and
security.
To the extent that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel relies on the proposition that all of
Defendants’ redactions are categorically improper and should be removed, the motion is denied.8
B. 	Appropriateness of Redactions/Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is clearly and crisply anchored in RIDOC’s definition of SPMI and
the appropriateness under federal law of RIDOC’s use of solitary confinement on the named
Plaintiffs and on the prisoners/detainees RIDOC has identified as SPMI. As pled, Plaintiffs
avoided a case that would require an individualized mini-trial regarding the seriousness and
persistence of the mental impairments of each of hundreds of prisoners and detainees who are
not designated as SPMI. By basing their claim on the prisoners/detainees who are known by
RIDOC to be SPMI, Plaintiff’s discovery can and should focus on RIDOC’s treatment of those
known to suffer from SPMI, supplemented by limited additional information sufficient to allow
Plaintiffs to perform the numeric comparisons called for by their ADA and § 504 claims. While
it is certainly true, as Plaintiffs contend, that DRRI could have brought a case focused on the
8 During the argument on the motion to compel, Plaintiffs supplemented their contention that redaction is
categorically improper with a lengthy recitation of all of the reasons why, with a Protective Order in place, the Court
could order RIDOC to strip away all redactions despite the state and federal laws that protect the redacted material.
Plaintiffs are right in arguing that the Court’s discretion in managing discovery clearly encompasses the authority to
order highly confidential, sensitive and intensely private matters to be exposed during litigation especially when
such matters are squarely relevant to the case. The question here is whether such an order is appropriate in the
circumstances of this case. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that it is not.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
prisoners and detainees who DRRI believes should be identified as SPMI, that claim is not
present in the case that is now pending before the Court.
During argument on the motion to compel, the Court asked Plaintiffs to explain how this
Complaint renders relevant the extensive discovery they seek regarding prisoners and detainees
who might be SPMI or who Plaintiffs believe should be SPMI. In response, Plaintiffs pointed to
a single phrase in a sentence in one paragraph of the Complaint, buried in Count III (ADA).9
Compl. ¶ 149. It states that Plaintiffs challenge RIDOC’s “mechanism of assessing prisoners’
and detainees’ mental health or other disability-related needs and designating them for placement
in solitary confinement.” Id. However, the balance of the sentence that begins with this phrase,
and the paragraph in which this phrase is embedded, clearly links this allegation to Plaintiffs’
core claim that RIDOC overuses “solitary confinement” for “prisoners and detainees with
SPMI.” Id. (emphasis added). This phrase simply does not profoundly alter what this case is
about.
Based on the scope of the claims in the Complaint and the defenses in the Amended
Answer, as well as what is proportional to the needs of this action, the Court finds that
individualized identifying information, health care and mental health information, use of force
reports and other potentially intensely personal information (such as matters that impact
institutional safety and security, like gang affiliation, or that relate to potentially criminal
conduct, like drug trafficking) about non-SPMI prisoners and detainees is not relevant. Because
of its highly sensitive nature, it is appropriately redacted from Defendants’ production. By
9 Plaintiffs’ brief lists many more paragraphs, but all of them are focused on “SPMI,” in the limited sense as defined
by the Complaint. ECF No. 43-1 at 17 n.9. On Reply, Plaintiffs sought to overcome the limits of the claims stated
in their Complaint by pointing not just to ¶ 149, but also to ¶¶ 123 and 142. ECF No. 57 at 2. Neither supports
Plaintiffs’ argument. Paragraph 123 is expressly limited in scope to the claims of “people with SPMI.” Compl. ¶
123. While ¶ 142 does not expressly mention SPMI, it is a foundational statement that supports the claims stated in
the subsequent paragraphs (¶¶ 145-48), which are expressly focused on “prisoners and detainees with SPMI.” Id.
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
contrast, information related to mental health treatment, the use of solitary confinement and the
use of force while in solitary confinement regarding those identified by RIDOC as SPMI (in
addition to the named Plaintiffs) is squarely relevant; to the extent that such information was
requested but has been redacted, the redactions should be removed.
A somewhat closer call is Defendants’ redaction of the names and identifying indicia of
RIDOC staff and other inmates who appear in the produced use of force reports. The identities
of these staffers and other involved inmates are marginally relevant in that the Complaint is
focused on the use of force to manage behavior of named Plaintiffs and of prisoners/detainees
with SPMI who have been placed in restrictive housing. Compl. ¶¶ 84, 86, 109, 119. While
such persons are certainly potential witnesses to each individual use-of-force incident, this case
does not seek damages based on the use of force by specific individuals nor does it call for
individualized fact finding on the appropriateness of the force used in each individual situation.
Rather, it examines the appropriateness of the use of force, despite SPMI, on the named Plaintiffs
and those with SPMI while in restrictive housing or in the RTU. While it is conceivable that the
identity of a RIDOC staffer or other inmate may become relevant, for example, so that Plaintiffs
can pursue an exemplar deposition, Defendants have committed to providing appropriate
information in that circumstance upon request. Otherwise, the use of force is an emotionally
fraught event and the exposure of the identities of the RIDOC staff and other inmates who are
involved in these difficult incidents creates a serious concern regarding institutional safety and
security. See Walker, 2010 WL 4903825, at *1 (permitting redaction of information that may be
relevant but also could pose safety and security risks to ACI employees and inmates if
disclosed). In light of the borderline relevancy of this information, balanced against the safety
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
and security concerns that are presented when such information is produced, the Court exercises
its discretion to find that, as of now, these redactions are appropriate.
To summarize, the Court finds that Defendants’ redactions to conceal irrelevant material
(pertaining to non-SPMI prisoners/detainees) and marginally relevant material (the names of
RIDOC staff and other involved inmates that appear in use of force reports) are appropriate
because the redacted information implicates substantial privacy considerations, exacerbated
because they arise in the prison setting where the identities and characteristics (for example,
gang affiliation and drug trafficking behaviors) also implicate safety and security. On the other
hand, information pertaining to the named Plaintiffs and to prisoners and detainees who RIDOC
identifies as SPMI is highly relevant and, despite its sensitive character, should be unredacted to
the extent that it has been concealed. Finally, Defendants have largely produced the non-
identifying information from the restrictive housing reports that will permit Plaintiffs to compare
the number of instances, the duration of each instance and the reason for each instance when
restrictive housing is used for non-SPMI prisoners/detainees by comparison with the same data
for those with SPMI. To the extent that any such information has been redacted, it should be
provided.
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel as follows:
• 	For the minutes of meetings, Defendants shall unredact all information (including
identifying information) regarding individuals identified as SPMI and the named
Plaintiffs and may leave redactions that conceal all material related to the identities,
health care and other information related to all other non-SPMI prisoners/detainees.
• 	For restrictive housing reports, Defendants shall unredact all identifying information
pertaining to prisoners/detainees who are SPMI and the named Plaintiffs, as well as
information sufficient to calculate the number of instances and the duration of each
instance of the use of restrictive housing pertaining to prisoners/detainees who are not
SPMI. The produced reports shall reflect information sufficient to permit Plaintiffs to
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

17
numerically compare the use of restrictive housing for prisoners/detainees with SPMI and
prisoners/detainees without SPMI. All identifying information pertaining to
prisoners/detainees who are non-SPMI shall remain redacted.
• 	For the use of force documents pertaining to the named Plaintiffs, Defendants may leave
redacted the names and identifying and other information (including gang affiliation,
social security numbers and medical information) regarding other inmates and the
RIDOC staff involved in each incident. To the extent that Plaintiffs deem the identity of
an inmate or a RIDOC staffer involved in a specific incident to be relevant, the parties
shall meet and confer regarding whether it should be unmasked.
• 	For the use of force in restrictive housing or the RTU on prisoners/detainees who are
identified by RIDOC as SPMI, Defendants shall remove redactions concealing the name
and identifying information for the SPMI inmate who is the target of the use of force.
Information pertaining to the identities of any other inmates and RIDOC staff involved in
the incident may remain redacted. To the extent that Plaintiffs deem the identity of an
inmate or RIDOC staffer involved in a specific incident to be relevant, the parties shall
meet and confer regarding whether it should be unmasked.
• 	For RIDOC’s prescriptions lists, Defendants shall remove redactions that conceal
personal identifying information regarding any named Plaintiffs.
IV. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 43) is granted to the
extent that redactions covering requested information pertaining to prisoners/detainees with
SPMI should be removed. Otherwise, the motion is denied. The parties are directed to meet and
confer regarding the timing of Defendants’ production as required by this Order.
/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
April 26, 2022
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 71 Filed 04/26/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>