Sodemann, Jason v. Melnick, Joshua et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JASON SODEMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA MELNICK,
DANA MILLER, and
MELISSA POLLESCH,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
22-cv-374-wmc
Defendants have filed a motion to compel, Dkt. 121, asking the court to order plaintiff
to produce medical records relating to his physical and mental condition from 2020 to present.
Defendants contend these records are relevant to plaintiff’s claim that defendants’ conduct
caused him physical injury, including lost sleep and stomach aches, and argue that they will be
prejudiced at trial without the information because the records may support alternative
explanations for plaintiff’s medical ailments. 	Plaintiff has agreed to supplement records
relating to his mental condition, but objects to producing any records relating to his physical
condition. He argues defendants withdrew their original request for such records and that it is
too late to request the records now, just weeks before trial. 	The court will grant defendants’
motion for the following reasons.
First, the requested records bear on plaintiff’s claim that defendants’ conduct injured
him. The parties dispute whether plaintiff’s original claim was limited to psychological injuries,
but this is beside the point because the court has since ruled that a jury could find that plaintiff
suffered physical injuries. Dkt. 110 at 28. In so ruling, the court relied on plaintiff’s reports
that he “sought medical attention” for “extreme anxiety, panic attacks, and insomnia,” which
Case: 3:22-cv-00374-wmc Document #: 139 Filed: 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
could constitute physical injuries. Id. Defendants should be allowed to probe these reports by
reviewing the medical records for themselves. And, to the extent Judge Conley finds the records
admissible, the jury should be provided as fulsome a picture on this point as the Rules of
Evidence allow. Plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute the relevance of the records.
Second, although defendants’ motion is late—it was filed after the close of discovery,
the court finds this lateness excusable. 	It would have been better had defendants filed this
motion when it was clear plaintiff objected to the scope of the instant authorization—from the
court’s review of the correspondence, this was in late January. Dkt. 122-8 at 2. It is unclear
why the motion was not filed until March. But at least part of the delay appears to have been
caused on plaintiff’s end. The court held a telephonic hearing on whether to reopen discovery
on December 4, 2025, and it ordered plaintiff to “supplement the production of his medical
records to ensure they are up to date for trial.” Dkt. 116. Days later, defendants’ counsel sent
plaintiff’s counsel a revised medical authorization for plaintiff’s signature, authorizing the
release of his entire medical records—including those relating to both physical and mental
conditions—from 2020 to present. Plaintiff’s counsel did not object to the scope—in fact, they
told defendants’ counsel to “[f]eel free to have DOC staff get Plaintiff’s signature on the
release.” 	Dkt. 122-6 at 1. 	And, critically, plaintiff signed the authorization on January 9,
2026. Dkt. 122-8 at 8. At this point, it appeared production was imminent, but there was a
miscommunication about how to actually get the records from DOC. Id. at 3. Only later did
plaintiff’s counsel object to the scope, and even later raise concerns with the burden associated
with production, discussed next. On this record, it wasn’t unreasonable for defendants to think
the records were forthcoming—at least for some time.
Case: 3:22-cv-00374-wmc Document #: 139 Filed: 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Third, despite plaintiff’s counsel’s protests, production of these records is not an overly
onerous process and thus not disproportionate to the needs of the case. 	It is not clear how
voluminous these records are, but even if they are thousands of pages as plaintiff theorizes, the
court is confident plaintiff’s counsel can complete review by the deadline. This review can be
facilitated by the parties entering into a confidentiality agreement restricting use to the
litigation.
Finally, there is no unfair prejudice to plaintiff by requiring this production. Plaintiff
knows what medical treatment he has sought and why, and he has had access to and control
over his own personal health information since he filed this lawsuit. This order simply allows
all parties the same access to relevant information. To the extent reviewing the records distracts
from other trial preparation tasks, this could have been avoided had plaintiff completed the
production in December as the court ordered or January as counsel’s correspondence
contemplated. In any event, the court will set special deadlines for pretrial motions related to
these records to address issues with the pretrial submission schedule. Apart from this change,
the parties should expect no other relief from any of the pretrial deadlines. 	Defendants in
particular should expect no follow-on discovery related to these records. 	As outlined above,
defendants could have brought this motion sooner, so they cannot rely on the records to reopen
discovery in any fashion or seek relief from any previously ordered deadlines.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED.
2. 	Plaintiff must complete production as soon as possible, but no later than March 23,
2026.
Case: 3:22-cv-00374-wmc Document #: 139 Filed: 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
3. 	The March 17, 2026 motion hearing is CANCELLED, and the parties are
ORDERED to use the time instead to meet and confer on logistics for the
production.
4. 	Any pretrial motions related to these records are due March 27, 2026, and any
responses are due April 1, 2026.
5. 	All other pretrial deadlines remain in place.
6. 	The parties bear their own costs on this motion.
Entered 16th day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:22-cv-00374-wmc Document #: 139 Filed: 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4