Braggs v. Hamm

M.D. Alabama

Braggs v. Hamm

DecidedJune 3, 2021

Docket2:14-cv-00601

StatusUnknown

This text of Braggs v. Hamm (Braggs v. Hamm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Braggs v. Hamm, (M.D. Ala. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 2:14cv601-MHT ) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his ) official capacity as ) Commissioner of ) the Alabama Department of ) Corrections, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

During the omnibus remedial hearing, the defendants have argued that the psychological autopsies produced for inmates who have committed suicide while in ADOC custody should be treated as confidential and be made subject to the court’s standing protective order (Doc. 266). During the first liability trial, the court addressed a similar objection raised by MHM, ADOC’s previous provider of mental-health care, regarding the use of quality-assurance documents it had produced. See Dunn v. Dunn, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (2016). The court concluded that these materials were not privileged but held that they would be subject to a protective order deeming them

to be confidential. See id. at 1213. *** It is ORDERED that by noon on June 7, 2021, the plaintiffs are to show cause why the psychological

autopsies produced by Wexford, ADOC’s current provider of mental-health services, should not be treated the same as MHM’s quality-assurance documents and thus subject to the protective order. This should address only the

psychological autopsies themselves, not the issue of whether the documents underlying those autopsies should be treated as confidential.

DONE, this the 3rd day of June, 2021. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 2:14cv601-MHT ) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his ) official capacity as ) Commissioner of ) the Alabama Department of ) Corrections, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

During the omnibus remedial hearing, the defendants have argued that the psychological autopsies produced for inmates who have committed suicide while in ADOC custody should be treated as confidential and be made subject to the court’s standing protective order (Doc. 266). During the first liability trial, the court addressed a similar objection raised by MHM, ADOC’s previous provider of mental-health care, regarding the use of quality-assurance documents it had produced. See Dunn v. Dunn, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (2016). The court concluded that these materials were not privileged but held that they would be subject to a protective order deeming them

to be confidential. See id. at 1213. *** It is ORDERED that by noon on June 7, 2021, the plaintiffs are to show cause why the psychological

autopsies produced by Wexford, ADOC’s current provider of mental-health services, should not be treated the same as MHM’s quality-assurance documents and thus subject to the protective order. This should address only the

psychological autopsies themselves, not the issue of whether the documents underlying those autopsies should be treated as confidential.

DONE, this the 3rd day of June, 2021. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Braggs v. Hamm, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braggs-v-hamm-almd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack