Williams, Jovan v. Young, Rebecca et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOVAN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-252-jdp
Plaintiff Jovan Williams, a state prisoner representing himself, alleges that defendants
failed to promptly address his threats of suicide and to give him adequate medical care after he
overdosed on medication in violation of his constitutional rights. 1 	Dkt. 1. 	Relevant here,
plaintiff alleges that defendant Rebecca Young, a corrections officer, watched as he overdosed
in his cell by taking pills without attempting to take the pills from him or otherwise take action
to prevent the overdose. Id., ¶ 16–20.
This order addresses plaintiff’s motions to preserve and compel production of certain
video evidence. 2 Dkts. 44, 46, 49. For the following reasons, the court will require defendants
to produce certain unaltered video evidence for plaintiff’s review at his institution.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks to ensure the preservation of relevant video evidence and to compel
defendants to produce it, including an unaltered copy of Rebecca Young’s body worn camera
1 The court dismissed plaintiff’s restraint claims for his failure to exhaust them. Dkt. 58.
2 Plaintiff’s motion for a decision on his discovery motions, Dkt. 59, is now moot.
Case: 3:25-cv-00252-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 1 of 5

2
footage from the morning of August 31, 2024, and any video of him on that date being removed
from an interview room, assessed by Health Services, and transported to the hospital, and
interacting with defendant Shane Hinton.
Taking the request for video of the interview room, Health Services, and defendant
Hinton first, defendants attest that none of this video footage can be located. 	Dkt. 50 at 2.
These 	videos 	were 	initially 	preserved 	by 	the 	non-defendant 	security 	secretary, 	with
confirmation sent to plaintiff on November 10, 2024. 	Dkt. 51, ¶ 3. 	When the Wisconsin
Department of Justice sought to review the videos, the security secretary was unable to locate
any of these videos she believes she preserved pursuant to plaintiff’s request. Id., ¶ 14. Neither
could a paralegal supervisor at the Wisconsin Department of Justice or the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections Bureau of Technology Management. Dkt. 52, ¶ 14, Dkt. 53, ¶ 9.
Defendants have no explanation why this occurred.
The court cannot compel defendants to produce or preserve materials that do not exist,
and while the loss of this evidence is unfortunate, there is no evidence that these videos were
purposely destroyed or deleted. 	To the extent plaintiff believes otherwise, remedies used to
combat spoliation of evidence include pretrial discovery sanctions and an “adverse inference”
at trial, which permits the trier of fact to draw an inference that the missing evidence would
have been unfavorable to the party that failed to preserve it. 	Plaintiff may raise the issue at
summary judgment or trial, but he must keep in mind that to prevail on such a claim, he will
have to meet the high bar of showing that defendants destroyed the evidence on purpose to
hide adverse information. See Norman-Nunnery v. Madison Area Tech. Coll., 625 F.3d 422, 428
(7th Cir. 2010) (“The crucial element in a spoliation claim is not the fact that the [evidence
was] destroyed but that [it was] destroyed for the purpose of hiding adverse information.”).
Case: 3:25-cv-00252-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Turning to defendant Young’s body camera video, it has been produced in what the
parties call a “redacted” form. The court understands this to mean that it does not have sound,
at least in some portions—it is unclear whether there are portions with sound and portions
without. Defendants explain that they redacted the video footage “to protect other inmates’
privacy and confidential information,” including information defendants suggest may be
protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). 	Dkt. 50
at 2. 	Plaintiff objects, contending that Young denies having her trap key on the day of the
incident but the video with sound will show her using her key at other cells and thus
presumably help establish that Young could have used her trap key to also open the trap on
plaintiff’s cell door when he began to overdose on pills. 3
Defendants should make reasonable efforts to produce as much of the video with audio
as possible. Generally speaking, discovery is broad. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)
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, 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. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence
to be discoverable.”
Relevance is not disputed, and redaction is done for limited purposes. Rule 5.2 provides
for redaction of an individual’s social security or taxpayer identification number, birth date,
3 A trap key is a key used by prison staff to operate the secure slots or “traps” on a cell doors.
Case: 3:25-cv-00252-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 3 of 5

4
and financial-account number, and of a minor’s name, which do not seem to be at issue. 	A
court can require the redaction of additional information “[f]or good cause,” but defendants
have not sought a protective order to that or any other effect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e); see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c) (designating why the court may issue a protective order).
Defendants rely on HIPPA, a statute that protects individually identifiable information
about a person’s mental or physical health from disclosure. 	See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d(6)
(defining “individually identifiable health information”) & 1320d-6 (wrongful disclosure of
individually identifiable health information). But they do not explain what information in the
video, even generically or categorically, would require redaction or alternation pursuant to this
statute. 	And while defendants offer to provide the video for in camera review “and further
determinations from there,” Dkt. 50 at 4, in camera review is primarily used to determine
whether materials are privileged, not as tool for the parties to use to brainstorm disclosure
solutions.
Because the video captures the underlying events alleged in this case against defendant
Young, it should be disclosed in as unaltered a state as possible, taking into account the points
regarding redaction/protection discussed above. 	If Young’s interaction with other inmates
during her rounds on the day in question revealed information about their mental or physical
health, such as medication information, that could fall under HIPPA’s protections. 	But any
redaction/protection of this information should be narrowly tailored. 	If there is only a small
segment of the body camera video that has potentially protected information, that isn’t a basis
to remove audio from the whole of the video. 	Defendants must review the video and make
reasonable efforts to produce as much of it with audio as possible by the deadline indicated
below. 	They may omit those portions from the audio version produced for plaintiff’s review
Case: 3:25-cv-00252-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 4 of 5

5
that contain HIPPA protected information. If defendants conclude that the video as currently
redacted is what HIPPA requires, they must notify plaintiff by the production deadline.
Defendants may also seek a protective order prior to a fuller disclosure and may request that
the video be maintained under seal if either party seeks to admit it with audio.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Jovan Williams’ motion for clarification, Dkt. 59, is DENIED as moot.
2. 	Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, Dkt. 49, is DENIED.
3. 	Plaintiff’s motions to compel production, Dkt. 44 & Dkt. 46, are GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part as described in this order.
4. 	By April 17, 2026, defendants must make available an unredacted or partially
unredacted copy of the body camera video footage for plaintiff’s review at his
institution or notify plaintiff that no additional audio will be restored pursuant to
this order.
Entered March 31, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00252-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 5 of 5