42 USC § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee’s serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that a police officer called the jail’s medical provider about plaintiff’s medication; Whether witnesses’ testimony claiming “lack of memory” was sufficient to defeat a motion for judgment as a matter of law; Motion for discovery sanctions; FedRCivP 37(b)(2)(A)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court affirmed judgment as a matter of law for defendant-Advanced Correctional Healthcare (ACH) on plaintiff-Victor’s claim for deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee’s medical needs, holding that witnesses’ “lack of memory” about events in the case could not overcome ACH’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Victor spent the night in jail after being arrested and did not receive his medicine while there. He suffered a seizure shortly after he was released. He claimed that officers had contacted the jail’s medical provider, ACH, about the medication but he never received it. Officers and ACH employees said that they “could not recall” receiving or making the alleged call, and there were no records of one. The jury returned a split verdict, finding in favor of defendant-nurse on Victor’s claim against her but for Victor on his claim against ACH. The district court then granted ACH’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, the court agreed with the district court that the witnesses’ “‘I have no recollection’ testimony does not satisfy Victor’s burden to show that a call occurred.” Further, while he “testified that an officer had told him that a nurse refused to authorize his medication, this hearsay carried no weight.” The court explained that to grant judgment as a matter of law, the district court was required to find that “‘a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue[.]’” An alleged ACH “policy or custom” regarding medication “must have ‘directly caused’ the” constitutional violation. Thus, Victor had “to present enough evidence to establish that an officer alerted an ACH employee about Victor’s urgent medical need.” The court held that he did not. There was no record of a call. At best, his “evidence amounts to statements that witnesses could not remember any call.” As to his testimony about what the corrections officers allegedly told him, “Victor lacked ‘personal knowledge’ that any officer called any ACH employee. And his second-hand remarks about what the officers conveyed do not create a jury question.” The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion for discovery sanctions.