Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 573

PHASE 2 DISCOVERY ORDER directing as follows: (1) With respect to plfs' request for supplementation of credentialing documentation and peer reviews, defs are to respond by no later than 7/22/16, and plfs may reply by no later than 7/27/16; Def s are to file under seal and, for purposes of in camera review, the peer-review files at issue by no later than 7/27/2016, as further set out in order; (2) with respect to plfs' request to receive or review the mortality reviews of the three de ceased named plfs, defs are to respond by no later than 7/22/16, and plfs may reply by no later than 7/27/16; Defs are to collect these files at the offices of defense counsel by no later than 7/27/16, but need not submit them to the court at this ti me; further ORDERING that the following agreement, reached and memorialized in writing by the parties at the status conference held on the record on 7/20/16, is entered on the record in this case as a binding stipulation, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/21/16. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION JOSHUA DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv601-MHT (WO) PHASE 2 DISCOVERY ORDER Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motion to compel supplementation of certain documents from defendants (doc. no. 570), and based on the representations made during a status conference held on the record on July 20, 2016, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) With respect to plaintiffs’ request for supplementation of credentialing documentation and peer reviews, defendants are to respond by no later than July 22, 2016, and plaintiffs may reply by Defendants no later are to than file July under 27, seal 2016. and, for purposes of in camera review, the peer-review files at issue by no later than July 27, 2016. Defendants need not file the peer-review files related to dentists, but are to collect those files at the offices of defense counsel by no later than July 27, 2016, and are to have them prepared for immediate submission, should the court so order. Defendants are also specifically to address in their response to the motion why they believe they should not be required to produce the files related to dentists even if they are required to produce the other peer-review files. (2) With respect to plaintiffs’ request to receive or review the mortality reviews of the three deceased named plaintiffs, defendants are to respond by no later than July 22, 2016, and plaintiffs may reply by no later than July 27, 2 2016. Defendants are to collect these files at the offices of defense counsel by no later than July 27, 2016, but need not submit them to the court at this time. It is further ORDERED that the following agreement, reached and memorialized in writing by the parties at the status conference held on the record on July 20, 2016, is entered on the record in this case as a binding stipulation: “The Parties agree regarding the 25 medical records at issue in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Supplementation of Certain Documents from Defendants as follows: “1. Defendants assert they have made a good faith effort to locate all documents in the medical records. “2. Should Defendants locate any additional documents from those medical records, they will produce them immediately. “3. If any additional documents from the medical records are produced, the Court will determine whether 3 the production date affects their admissibility, based on the good faith of Defendants, the circumstances of production, and the prejudice to Plaintiffs.” DONE, this the 21st day of July, 2016. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?