Tripati v. Corizon, Inc. et al

Filing 316

ORDER that the Renewed Verified Motion for Limited Discovery (Doc. 312 ) is DENIED. It is further Ordered that the deadline for filing a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to 1/21/2019. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED (see attached Order for complete details). Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 12/17/2018. (MFR)

1

WO

2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8

Anant Kumar Tripati,
Plaintiff,

9
10

ORDER

v.

11

No. CV-13-00615-TUC-DCB

Corizon Incorporated, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff has been given Notice and Warning that failing to file a Response to

15

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment may result in it being summarily granted.

16

(Notice (Doc. 310) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.56; LRCiv 56.1(e); LR Civ 7.2(e)(1)). Instead of

17

filing a Responsive brief, he has chosen to object to the Defendants’ use of his medical

18

record evidence to support their motion for summary judgment because Defendants

19

allegedly violated HIPPA by disclosing them to counsel without his release. See (Response

20

(Doc. 309)).

21

On November 8, 2018, he similarly filed a Renewed Verified Motion for Limited

22

Discovery Due to Admitted Crime-Fraud. (Doc. 312.) He adds vague assertions that

23

Defendants failed to disclose some documents he requested during discovery, which has

24

been closed since before the remand of this case for disposition on the merits. The Court

25

explains here, without using any legalese in an effort to make it clear to the Plaintiff, that

26

it intends to review his claims based on the merits to the best of its ability depending on

27

the record before it. Plaintiff put his medical condition at issue in this case, therefore,

28

Defendants are entitled to his medical records through discovery. Whether Defendants

1

violated HIPPA in releasing them to counsel without securing a release from the Plaintiff

2

is a question this Court did not reach because it reasoned that if Corizon had asked for a

3

medical release and had Plaintiff objected, the Court would have required Plaintiff to sign

4

the release and disclose his medical records or forfeit his case. Given jumping through

5

these procedural hoops would have only served to delay disposition of the case, the Court

6

simply denied the Plaintiff’s request to preclude Defendants from using his medical records

7

to support their motion for summary judgment. The Court found there is no prejudice to

8

the Plaintiff because these are his medical records which he may obtain by simply

9

requesting them. See (Reply (Doc. 314) (citing ADC Departmental Order 1104)).

10

The Court has informed the Plaintiff that it would grant no further extensions of

11

time to file his Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court,

12

however, affords him one last opportunity to address the merits of his claims in opposition

13

to Defendants’ dispositive motion. The Court shall strike any Response or portion thereof

14

that is not responsive to the merits of the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

15

Accordingly,

16

IT IS ORDERED that the Renewed Verified Motion for Limited Discovery (Doc.

17

312) is DENIED.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for filing a Response to

19

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to January 21, 2019. There is no

20

extension of time for filing the REPLY in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment.

21

The Reply deadline is NOT extended. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME SHALL

22

BE GRANTED. Failure to file a Response to the merits of the Motion for Summary

23

Judgment shall result in this Court’s disposition of it without further notice to the Plaintiff.

24

Dated this 17th day of December, 2018.

25
26
27
28

-2-