AMBER HIRSCH, as administrator of the estate of decedent, MARCUS MAYS, and on behalf of decedent's next of kin, Plaintiff, v. WILL COUNTY, et al., Defendants Case No. 19 CV 7398 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois Filed: May 08, 2023 Cummings, Jeffrey I., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Currently before the Court is plaintiff's motion to compel defendant Kim's cell phone records, (Dckt. #248). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice. STATEMENT Plaintiff Amber Hirsch, as administrator of the estate of decedent Marcus Mays, initiated this action against Will County, Will County Sheriff Mike Kelley (along with several Will county employees and officers), Wellpath, LLC (and its predecessor), and seventeen Wellpath employees after Mays died of a seizure in his cell at the Will County Adult Detention Center. (hereinafter, “Will County Jail”). According to the allegations of plaintiff's second amended complaint, (Dckt. #230), upon his intake to Will County Jail on October 28, 2018, Mays informed jail staff of his history of grand mal seizures, and that he took medication for this condition. Yet, defendants did not provide Mays with medication and he died of a seizure eleven days later, on November 8, 2018. Mays brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other statutes, for failure to provide proper medical care in violation of his constitutional rights. At all relevant times, Will County contracted with defendant Wellpath to provide medical care at Will County Jail, and defendant Dr. Young Kim, a Wellpath employee, served as the medical director, and sole physician at the facility. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. In the instant motion to compel, (Dckt. 248), plaintiff asks the Court to compel Wellpath and/or Dr. Kim to produce Dr. Kim's personal cell phone records, including call logs and text messages, for an eleven-day period between October 8, 2018, the day Mays entered Will County Jail, and November 9, 2018, the day after his death.[1] Citing to deposition testimony that Dr. Kim was available to nursing staff by phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year – including on Wednesdays when he was working at another facility – plaintiff argues that the phone records could show that either Dr. Kim was in “regular contact with the nursing staff” while away from the facility or “could show that there were zero phone calls.” (Dckt. #248 at 3). According to plaintiff, “either scenario is relevant.” (Id). A party may file a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 whenever another party fails to respond to a discovery request or when its response is insufficient. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). Courts have broad discretion in resolving such discovery disputes and do so by adopting a liberal interpretation of the discovery rules. Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1996); Chicago Reg. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Celtic Floor Covering, Inc., 316 F.Supp.3d 1044, 1046 (N.D.Ill. 2018). Rule 26 provides that the “[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....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); see Motorola Sols., Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., 365 F.Supp.3d 916, 924 (N.D.Ill. 2019) (“Relevance focuses on the claims and defenses in the case, not its general subject matter”). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). *2 Here, even under the broad purview of Rule 26, and on the record before the Court, the relevance of Dr. Kim's personal cell phone records over an eleven-day period is tenuous at best. First, as plaintiff herself seems to acknowledge, the call logs themselves will shed no light on the content or reasons behind the calls made during those eleven days, and certainly would not reflect whether any calls were made regarding Mays. Indeed, as defendant Wellpath points out, both intake nurse Olivia Simpri-Mensah and Dr. Kim provided sworn deposition testimony that the nurses did not call Dr. Kim regarding Mays upon his intake. (Dckt. #257 at 42).[2] While call logs might – as plaintiff implies – shed light on how “easy it was to contact” Dr. Kim regarding inmates’ medical conditions and/or complaints, Dr. Kim himself testified that his position required him to be available “24 hours a day, seven days a week.” (Dckt. #257 at 29). As such, Dr. Kim's call logs are not needed to prove a proposition that he has already admitted exists. Second, with respect to text messages – which admittedly would at least reflect the content of any communications – the testimony of Wellpath Health Services Administrator Jennifer Briscoe indicates that the nurses contacted Dr. Kim by phone, and not via text message. (Dckt. #248-2 at 3-5). Plaintiff has pointed to no evidence to the contrary. Thus, in view of Briscoe's testimony on this point, the production of Dr. Kim's text messages will not lead to discovery of information that is relevant to plaintiff's claims. On the other hand, ordering the production of Dr. Kim's personal cell phone records even over a narrowed eleven-day time period seems highly likely to expose a considerable amount of private information and communications unrelated to any claims at issue in this action. Given the improbability that the production of Dr. Kim's personal cell phone records will lead to the discovery of additional information related to plaintiff's claims, the production of this type of potentially sensitive personal information is not warranted at this time.[3] See, e.g., Gibbs v. Fam. Care Ctr. Of Ind., LLC, No. 2:09-CV-385-WCL-PRC, 2011 WL 839666, at *4 (N.D.Ind. Mar. 7, 2011). Footnotes [1] Plaintiff also initially sought phone records of any Wellpath-issued cell phone Dr. Kim utilized during the eleven-day time period. However, Dr. Kim testified at his deposition that Wellpath never issued him a cell phone and that he used his personal cell phone for work purposes. (Dckt. #257 at 28). [2] Nurse Simpri-Mensah's deposition has not been filed, but the Court has no reason to doubt defense counsel's representation of her testimony in this regard. United States v. Smith, No. 21-CR-30003-DWD, 2022 WL 17519767, at *2 (S.D.Ill. Dec. 8, 2022) (“Attorneys are officers of the court and a judge has the right, in most circumstances, to rely on their representations.”). [3] As defendant Wellpath acknowledges, “[s]hould different or conflicting evidence be discovered as this case proceeds, it may be appropriate to revisit” the issues raised by plaintiff's motion at that time. (See Dckt. #253 at 5).