Hovis et al v. Wichita County Texas et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TIFFANY HOVIS, as dependent 	§
administrator of and on behalf of the 	§
ESTATE OF MATTHEW RAY 	§
MAXWELL, and MATTHEW RAY 	§
MAXWELL’s heir(s)-at-law and 	§
wrongful death beneficiaries; and 	§
DONNA DIAZ, individually, 	§
§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:23-cv-2220-L
§
WICHITA COUNTY, TEXAS; and 	§
CORRHEALTH PLLCC A/K/A 	§
CORRHEALTH, 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) to compel
Defendant 	CorrHealth, 	PLLC 	a/k/a 	CorrHealth 	(“CorrHealth”) 	to 	produce 	all
documents responsive to certain of their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requests
for production (“RFPs”) – RFP Nos. 15-17, 31, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, and
61-63 [Dkt. No. 84] (the “MTC”).
United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay referred the MTC to the
undersigned United States magistrate judge for determination under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). See Dkt. No. 85.
CorrHealth filed a response to the MTC. See Dkt. No. 113. And Plaintiffs
replied. See Dkt. No. 117.
The Court GRANTS the MTC for the reasons and to the extent set out below.
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
And, because it furthers the analysis below (and may assist Judge Lindsay
should objections be filed to this memorandum opinion and order), the undersigned
will set out in full CorrHealth’s third supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 15-17, 31,
36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, and 61-63:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce copies of all
pleadings for all lawsuits filed against you or any of your employees
concerning a death in custody that occurred or was believed to have
occurred as a result of a medical condition or of natural causes during
the Specified Period.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights.
Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for
production of materials equally available to all parties. Additionally, the
requested information would include confidential medical information
to which third parties have reasonable expectations of privacy, and
which are legally protected from disclosure by the physician/patient
privilege. Defendant further objects to the extent peer review privilege
applies.
Defendant is withholding materials responsive to this Request
based on the objections stated above which are publicly available to all
parties.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce copies of all
documents (other than pleadings), letters, and e-mails you received
during the Specified Time Period concerning a death in custody that
occurred or was believed to have occurred as a result of a medical
condition or of natural causes.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights.
Defendant 	objects 	to 	this 	Request 	as 	it 	calls 	for 	production 	of
information and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
attorney 	work 	product 	doctrines. 	This 	Request 	further 	seeks
information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this case,
and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the case based on the
factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Additionally, the requested
information would include confidential medical information to which
third parties have reasonable expectations of privacy, and which are
legally protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege.
Defendant further objects to the extent peer review privilege applies.
Defendant is withholding materials responsive to this Request
based on the objections stated above, specifically medical records of third
parties. Only core work product is being withheld as it pertains to
attorney-client and work product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce copies of all
documents that evidence or reference any orders sent by any state
agency, court, or judge during the Specified Time Period that provides
instructions to you or your personnel related to the Topics.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b )(1). Additionally,
the 	requested 	information 	would 	include 	confidential 	medical
information to which third parties have reasonable expectations of
privacy, 	and 	which 	are 	legally 	protected 	from 	disclosure 	by 	the
physician/patient privilege. Defendant further objects to the extent peer
review privilege applies.
Defendant is not aware of any documents responsive to this
Request.
REQUEST 	FOR 	PRODUCTION 	NO. 	31: 	Produce 	all
handwritten notes related to the Incident (other than any handwritten
notes made by your counsel).
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as it calls for production
of information and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or
attorney work product doctrines. Defendant further objects to the extent
peer review privilege applies.
Defendant incorporates all such documents previously produced
by all parties. Defendant is withholding a telephonic recorded Clinical
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
Mortality 	Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously 	asserted
including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege as it
contained 	confidential 	communications 	and 	analysis 	developed 	in
anticipation of litigation and peer review privilege. Only core work
product is being withheld as it pertains to attorney-client and work
product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Produce copies of all
meeting agendas and minutes for any meeting that occurred after the
Incident and related to the Incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as it calls for production
of information and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or
attorney work product doctrines. Defendant further objects to the extent
peer review privilege applies.
Defendant incorporates all such documents previously produced
by all parties. Defendant is withholding a telephonic recorded Clinical
Mortality 	Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously 	asserted
including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege as it
contained 	confidential 	communications 	and 	analysis 	developed 	in
anticipation of litigation and peer review privilege. Only core work
product is being withheld as it pertains to attorney-client and work
product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Produce a copy of your
complete file, including all documents, emails, electronic documents,
audio recordings, and video recordings, that is related to the any activity
that took place during the Incident and its precipitating and subsequent
events, including all police reports.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Defendant
further objects to this Request as it calls for production of information
and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work
product doctrines. Defendant further objects to the extent peer review
privilege applies.
Defendant incorporates all such documents previously produced
by all parties. Defendant is withholding a telephonic recorded Clinical
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 5 -
Mortality 	Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously 	asserted
including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege as it
contained 	confidential 	communications 	and 	analysis 	developed 	in
anticipation of litigation and peer review privilege. Only core work
product is being withheld as it pertains to attorney-client and work
product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Produce copies of all
audio recordings of all telephone calls placed on the date of or after the
date(s) of the Incident that are related to the Incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Defendant
further objects to this Request as it calls for production of information
and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work
product doctrines. Defendant further objects to the extent peer review
privilege applies.
Defendant incorporates all such documents previously produced
by all parties. Defendant is withholding a telephonic recorded Clinical
Mortality 	Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously 	asserted
including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege as it
contained 	confidential 	communications 	and 	analysis 	developed 	in
anticipation of litigation and peer review privilege. Only core work
product is being withheld as it pertains to attorney-client and work
product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Produce copies of all
documents which reference the Deceased, such as emails, memos, notes,
and documents concerning any previous incarceration or contact with
the Deceased.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 6 -
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Defendant
further objects to this Request as it calls for production of information
and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work
product doctrines. Defendant further objects to the extent peer review
privilege applies.
Defendant incorporates all such documents previously produced
by all parties. Defendant is withholding a telephonic recorded Clinical
Mortality 	Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously 	asserted
including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege as it
contained 	confidential 	communications 	and 	analysis 	developed 	in
anticipation of litigation and peer review privilege. Only core work
product is being withheld as it pertains to attorney-client and work
product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Produce copies of all
documents, photos, digital images, e-mails, and electronic information
you ever received about the Deceased from any medical care or health
services provider or contractor.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Defendant
further objects to this Request as it calls for production of information
and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work
product doctrines. Defendant further objects to this Request as it calls
for 	disclosure 	of 	information 	prior 	to 	the 	deadline 	set 	for 	such
disclosures. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is premature. Defendant further objects to the extent peer review
privilege applies.
Defendant incorporates all such documents previously produced
by all parties. Defendant is withholding a telephonic recorded Clinical
Mortality 	Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously 	asserted
including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege as it
contained 	confidential 	communications 	and 	analysis 	developed 	in
anticipation of litigation and peer review privilege. Only core work
product is being withheld as it pertains to attorney-client and work
product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Produce copies of all
logs and other documents listing all detainees in the Jail for the time
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 7 -
period beginning four hours before the first date of the Incident and
concluding four hours after the last date of the Incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Additionally,
the 	requested 	information 	would 	include 	confidential 	medical
information to which third parties have reasonable expectations of
privacy, 	and 	which 	are 	legally 	protected 	from 	disclosure 	by 	the
physician/patient privilege. Defendant further objects to the extent peer
review privilege applies.
Defendant is withholding materials responsive to this Request
based on the objections stated above, third party patient medical
records.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Produce copies of all
documents that evidence or reference communications (whether oral,
written, electronic, or otherwise) by and between anyone (including but
not limited to the County’s employees, Corrhealth’s, the Texas Rangers,
the Texas Department of Public Safety, any other law enforcement
agency, 	or 	any 	investigative 	or 	prosecutorial 	agency) 	relating 	to
Plaintiff(s) or the Deceased (excluding written communications between
or among counsel in this case).
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Defendant
further objects to this Request as it calls for production of information
and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work
product doctrines. Defendant further objects to the extent peer review
privilege applies. Defendant incorporates all such documents previously
produced by all parties. Defendant is withholding a telephonic recorded
Clinical 	Mortality 	Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 7 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 8 -
asserted 	including 	attorney-client 	privilege, 	attorney 	work 	product
privilege as it contained confidential communications and analysis
developed in anticipation of litigation and peer review privilege. Only
core work product is being withheld as it pertains to attorney-client and
work product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Produce copies of all
documents, digital files, emails, and electronic records, audio recordings,
and video recordings evidencing or relating to any recreation of any
portion of the Incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Defendant
further objects to this Request as it calls for production of information
and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work
product doctrines. Defendant further objects to the extent peer review
privilege applies.
Defendant incorporates all such documents previously produced
by all parties. Defendant is withholding a telephonic recorded Clinical
Mortality 	Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously 	asserted
including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege as it
contained 	confidential 	communications 	and 	analysis 	developed 	in
anticipation of litigation and peer review privilege. Only core work
product is being withheld as it pertains to attorney-client and work
product privileges.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Produce color copies
of all text messages, including copies of any attachments sent by text
message, such as photographs and audio and video recordings regarding
the Incident or the Deceased.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 8 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 9 -
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Defendant
further objects to this Request as it calls for production of information
and/or materials protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work
product doctrines. Defendant further objects to the extent peer review
privilege applies.
Defendant incorporates all such documents previously produced
by 	all 	parties. 	To 	the 	extent 	such 	is 	responsive 	to 	this 	Request,
Defendant 	is 	withholding 	a 	telephonic 	recorded 	Clinical 	Mortality
Review 	protected 	by 	the 	objections 	previously 	asserted 	including
attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege as it contained
confidential communications and analysis developed in anticipation of
litigation and peer review privilege. To the extent such is responsive to
this Request, only core work product is being withheld as it pertains to
attorney-client and work product privileges. Defendant is not aware of
any text messages.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Produce copies of
letters, documents, and reports related to any death that occurred in
Jail as a result of a medical condition or of natural causes for the time
period beginning 10 years before the Incident and concluding 2 years
after the Incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Additionally,
the 	requested 	information 	would 	include 	confidential 	medical
information to which third parties have reasonable expectations of
privacy, 	and 	which 	are 	legally 	protected 	from 	disclosure 	by 	the
physician/patient privilege.
Defendant is withholding materials responsive to this Request
based on the objections stated above such as third party patient medical
records.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Produce copies of all
complaints you received from any person regarding medical needs,
medical care, or healthcare services in Jail, as well as any written
responses made by you, for the time period beginning 10 years before
the Incident and concluding 2 years after the Incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 9 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 10 -
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Additionally,
the 	requested 	information 	would 	include 	confidential 	medical
information to which third parties have reasonable expectations of
privacy, 	and 	which 	are 	legally 	protected 	from 	disclosure 	by 	the
physician/patient privilege.
Defendant is withholding materials responsive to this Request
based on the objections stated above, including third party patient
medical records.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Produce copies of all
documents that evidence communications between you and the Texas
Commission on Jail Standards that occurred during the time period
beginning 10 years before the Incident and concluding 2 years after the
Incident regarding any detainee issues, such as illness, injury, or death.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is harassing, over burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in
scope. Defendant further objects to this Request as seeks information
that is not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. Defendant further objects to this Request as it is
a mere fishing expedition. Defendant further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information in violation of privacy rights. This
Request further seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or
defense in this case, and/or that is not proportional to the needs of the
case based on the factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Additionally,
the 	requested 	information 	would 	include 	confidential 	medical
information to which third parties have reasonable expectations of
privacy, 	and 	which 	are 	legally 	protected 	from 	disclosure 	by 	the
physician/patient privilege.
Defendant is withholding materials responsive to this Request
based on the objections stated above such as third party patient medical
records to the extent such is responsive to this Request. Defendant is
not aware of any such documents in connection with the incident at
issue.
Dkt. No. 84-1 at 33-45 (cleaned up).
Discussion
The Court has laid out the standards that govern a Rule 37(a) motion to compel
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 10 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 11 -
as to Rule 34 requests for production, and the Court incorporates and will apply – but
will not repeat – those standards here. See VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. Wulf, 345
F.R.D. 406, 417-21 (N.D. Tex. 2021); Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 575-
79 (N.D. Tex. 2018).
Starting with relevance, CorrHealth mechanically reasserts that most of the
subject RFPs are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant
information.” But “[t]he 2015 amendments to Rule 26 deleted ‘from the definition of
relevance information that appears ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,’” and the governing standard under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1) now provides that “[p]arties 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.” Mahalingam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 349 F.R.D. 127, 143
(N.D. Tex. 2023) (cleaned up).
And this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of a pretrial detainee’s
constitutional rights is a “conditions of confinement” case, which “is a constitutional
attack on general conditions, practices, rules, or restrictions of pretrial confinement
that amount to punishment of the detainee.” Hovis v. Wichita Cnty., Tex., No. 3:23-
cv-2220-L, 2024 WL 3836559, at *5 (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2024) (cleaned up; quoting
Est. of Bonilla v. Orange Cnty., Tex., 982 F.3d 298, 308 (5th Cir. 2020)), rec. accepted,
2024 WL 3841480 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2024).
To state a conditions-of-confinement claim, a plaintiff must allege
(1) a rule or restriction or the existence of an identifiable intended
condition or practice or that the jail official’s acts or omissions were
sufficiently extended or pervasive; (2) which was not reasonably related
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 11 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 12 -
to 	a 	legitimate 	governmental 	objective; 	and 	(3) 	which 	caused 	the
violation of the inmate’s constitutional rights.
In other words, the conditions themselves constitute the harm,
regardless of any individual’s act or omission.
So, 	in 	conditions 	cases, 	the 	policies 	alleged 	impose 	durable
restraints or impositions on inmates’ lives that transcend a single act or
omission by an officer.
And, in such cases, even if only a single detainee is harmed, the
alleged cause of the harm is the broader conditions, practices, rules, or
restrictions.
Id. at *6 (cleaned up).
And, as the Court also previously explained,
“succeeding on a conditions-of-confinement claim is more difficult when
that claim rests upon an alleged de facto, rather than explicit, policy.”
Brooks v. Taylor Cnty., No. 1:20-cv-49-H, 2021 WL 4458380, at *24 (N.D.
Tex. 	Sept. 	29, 	2021). 	And, 	while 	the 	present 	focus 	is 	plausible
allegations, “[a] plaintiff may establish a de facto policy by presenting
evidence such as commissioned reports, consistent employee testimony,
or other documentary evidence indicating inmates received ‘grossly
inadequate’ 	treatment.” 	Id. 	(cleaned 	up). 	And, 	when 	“multiple
employees act in the same unconstitutional manner, that is indicative
of a de facto [municipal] policy.” Id. (citation omitted).
And, in this circuit, a plaintiff need not “show that a ‘policy or
practice [was] the exclusive cause of the constitutional deprivation,’” so
[c]ourts ‘may ... consider how individual policies or practices interact
with one another within the larger system.’” Sanchez v. Young Cnty.,
Tex., 956 F.3d 785, 795 (5th Cir. 2020) (emphasis omitted; quoting M.D.
ex rel. Stukenberg v. Abbott, 907 F.3d 237, 254, 255 (5th Cir. 2018)).
“This 	is 	because 	confinement 	conditions 	may 	be 	constitutionally
inadequate if, when viewed in combination, they have a ‘mutually
enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable
human need.’” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991)).
Id. at *9 (citation modified).
The 	Court 	revisits 	these 	findings 	to 	illustrate 	that 	in 	a 	“conditions 	of
confinement” case where the pleaded harms are based on de facto and interrelated
policies and practices, such as this one, requests seeking documents that are relevant
to a plaintiff’s claims can be rather broad considering the plaintiff’s burden. Accord
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 12 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 13 -
McGowan v. S. Methodist Univ., No. 3:18-cv-141-N, 2023 WL 2920848, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. Apr. 11, 2023) (“Courts construe relevance broadly, as a document need not, by
itself, prove or disprove a claim or defense or have strong probative force to be
relevant.”).
In addition, the Court is not persuaded that CorrHealth’s objections and
responses to the subject RFPs comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b).
First, as illustrated above, almost the entirety of CorrHealth’s objections
amount to “unsupported boilerplate,” and, so, those objections “are invalid based on
[CorrHealth’s] failing to make the objections ‘with specificity’ and ‘to explain and
support [its] objections.’” Mahalingam, 349 F.R.D. at 143 (quoting VeroBlue, 345
F.R.D. at 419); see id. (“For objections that deserve the label ‘boilerplate,’ counsel’s
repeating them in response to more than one discovery request is not the problem;
counsel’s failing to explain the basis for them as to each individual discovery request
is.”).
The one exception to this boilerplate appears to be CorrHealth’s explanation
that it objects to the production of “a telephonic recorded Clinical Mortality Review”
that it asserts is “protected by the objections previously asserted including attorney-
client 	privilege, 	attorney 	work 	product 	privilege 	as 	it 	contained 	confidential
communications and analysis developed in anticipation of litigation and peer review
privilege.”
As it further explains in its response to the MTC, “CorrHealth has disclosed
all of the medical records, their employee files and their policies in place at the time
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 13 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 14 -
of the incident. The direct communication between counsel and CorrHealth and the
Clinical Mortality Review (where general counsel was present) is all that has not been
produced.” Dkt. No. 113 at 10.
CorrHealth then urges the Court to apply a peer-review privilege to shield this
material from production. See id. at 10-12.
While, “[u]nder Texas law, the records and proceedings of a medical committee
are privileged from disclosure by statute,” Zenith Ins. Co. v. Tex. Institute for Surgery,
L.L.P., 	328 	F.R.D. 	153, 	163 	(N.D. 	Tex. 	2018) 	(citations 	omitted), 	“[i]t 	is 	well
established that federal privilege law governs in a federal question case involving
only federal law” – like this case, Guzman v. Mem’l Hermann Hosp. Sys., Civ. A. No.
H-07-3973, 2009 WL 427268, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2009) (citations omitted).
And, because “federal privilege law applies, the peer review documents are not
privileged,” as “[c]ourts have repeatedly held that the [federal Health Care Quality
Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA), 42 U.S.C. § 11101, et seq.] did not create a federal
privilege protecting medical peer review records from discovery and court subpoena.”
Id. (collecting cases, including Poliner v. Tex. Health Sys., 201 F.R.D. 437, 438 (N.D.
Tex. 2001)).
In sum, the Court OVERRULES CorrHealth’s objections and will order that it
produce 	all 	unproduced, 	non-privileged 	documents 	and 	electronically 	stored
information that are responsive to the subject RFPs in its possession, custody, or
control.
And, because the Court has overruled its objections, including as to a privilege
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 14 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 15 -
protecting medical peer review records – and considering CorrHealth’s argument in
response to the MTC that it need not be required to log all responsive materials
withheld based on the attorney-client or a similar (still applicable) privilege, see Dkt.
No. 113 at 12-13 – the Court reminds CorrHealth of its obligations under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5), see, e.g., Heller v. City of Dall., 303 F.R.D. 466, 486
(N.D. Tex. 2014) (“To comply with the requirements to support withholding any
responsive document or information as privileged or protected work product, a
privilege log or equivalent document complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(5)(A)’s requirements must be produced for any documents, communications, or
other materials withheld from production on the grounds of attorney-client privilege,
work product, or other privilege, immunity, or protection. Accordingly, a party may
properly raise and preserve an objection to production of documents in response to a
specific document request or interrogatory by objecting ‘to the extent’ that the
requests seeks privileged materials or work product, so long as the responding party
also provides the information required by Rule 26(b)(5)(A).”).
Finally, after carefully reviewing the parties’ arguments as to awarding
expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) and considering all the
circumstances here and the Court’s rulings above, the Court determines that, under
Rule 37(a)(5)(C), the parties will bear their own expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
in connection with the MTC.
Conclusion
The Court ORDERS Defendant CorrHealth, PLLC a/k/a CorrHealth to, by
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 15 of 16 PageID <pageID>

- 16 -
Monday, March 2, 2026, produce all unproduced, non-privileged documents and
electronically stored information that are responsive to Request Nos. 15-17, 31, 36,
40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, and 61-63 in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests
that are in Defendant CorrHealth, PLLC a/k/a CorrHealth’s possession, custody, or
control, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)’s requirements, as
explained above and laid out in VeroBlue, 345 F.R.D. at 417-21, and Lopez, 327 F.R.D.
at 575-79.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 10, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-02220-L Document 142 Filed 02/10/26 Page 16 of 16 PageID <pageID>