govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_23-cv-03961-6

Page 1 of 3 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
CANDRICE BOYD, 
 
 P l a i n t i f f , 
 
v. 
 
PROTESTANT MEMORIAL MEDICAL 
CENTER, INC., d/b/a MEMORIAL 
HOSPITAL BELLEVILLE, 
 
 D e f e n d a n t . 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge: 
 Plaintiff Candrice Boyd has filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Protestant 
Memorial Medical Center, d/b/a Memorial Hospital Belleville (“Memorial Hospital”) to 
produce certain medical records that she claims are necessary to accurately reflect her 
treatment history, provider coordination, es calation of care, and the severity of her 
condition. (Doc. 295). Specific ally, Boyd seeks referral docu mentation for three doctors 
from two entities: BJC/Datavant and SSM Health/SLUCare. (Id.). 
 “District courts have broad discretion in discovery-related matters.” Equal Emp. 
Opportunity Comm’n v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. , 46 F.4th 587, 601 (7th Cir. 2022). Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to “obtain discovery regarding any non-
privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). 
“Relevant information need no t be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears 
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Rayome v. Abt 
Elecs., No. 21 C 2639, 2024 WL 4119139 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2024) (quoting Nw. Mem’l Hosp. Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 2 of 3 
 
v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 930 (7th Cir. 2004)). Nonetheless, “ ‘requested discovery must be 
tied to the particular claims at issue in the case.’” Charvat v. Valente, 82 F. Supp. 3d 713, 
716 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (quoting Sykes v. Target Stores , No. 00 C 5112, 2002 WL 554505, at *3 
(N.D. Ill. Apr. 15, 2002)). 
 Rule 34 permits a party to “serve on any other party” a request to produce 
documents. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). “[B]y its terms, Rule 34 applies only to parties.” Hobley 
v. Burge , 433 F.3d 946, 950 (7th Cir. 2006). Docu ments in a non-pa rty’s possession, 
custody, or control, must be requested by serving a subpoena on the non-party. F ED. R. 
CIV. P. 45. 
 Here, the exhibits to Boyd’s motion confirm that she is seeking medical records 
from nonparties, including BJC/Datavant 1 and SSM Health/SLUCare. (Doc. 295, Ex. A 
and Ex. B). Memorial Hospital has no obligation to produce records that are in the 
possession, custody, or control of non-parties. 
 Moreover, it is unclear how the documents requested are tied to the claims in this 
case. Boyd’s motion states that her claims arise from a “work-related injury involving 
cervical spine and right shou lder pathology requiring multi-specialty care” (Doc. 295 at 
p. 2), but that is not the basis for her claims in this case. Instead, her Second Amended 
Complaint is based on Defendant’s alleged un lawful race discrimin ation, hostile work 
environment, FMLA interference, and wrongful termination/retaliatory discharge. 
(Doc. 125). It is clear that Bo yd is requesting these docume nts for her Illinois Workers’ 
 
1 BJC/Datavant did not refuse to produce the requested records, but merely noted a delay due to technical 
issues. BJC/Datavant said the requested information would be sent to Boyd by May 22, 2026. Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 3 of 3
Compensation case, as she specifically stated in her letter to SSM Health/SLUCare. 
(See Doc. 295-2 at p. 2).
For these reasons, the Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Candrice Boyd 
(Doc. 295) is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 12, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight