Whitehead v. Ryan et al

Filing 113

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 103 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's request for all medical records from November 2016 to present and mental health records is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for exhibits connected to Medical Defend ants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's request to consider his costs to litigate the discovery dispute as payment for his medical records is DENIED. Defendants shall file a Notice with the Court within seven (7) days of service of the exhibits. Plaintiff shall file a Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment within thirty (30) days of Medical Defendants' Notice of Service of Discovery. Signed by Senior Judge Raner C Collins on 7/9/2019. (See attached Order complete details) (DLC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Cassius Clayton Whitehead,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00257-TUC-RCC

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Cassius C. Whitehead’s Motion to Compel

16

Discovery of ADC/Corizon Medical Records and Production of Documents. (Doc. 103.)

17

Defendants Corizon Health Inc., Richard Pratt, and Charles L. Ryan (collectively “Medical

18

Defendants”) filed a Response (Doc. 109), and Plaintiff a Reply (Doc. 112). The Court will

19

grant the motion in part and deny in part.

20

I.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

21

Plaintiff wishes to obtain his medical records to develop his § 1983 claim and

22

respond to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”). (Doc. 103 at 2-3.)

23

Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order (1) requiring that Medical Defendants provide all

24

medical records from November 2016 to present, (2) directing Medical Defendants to file

25

a notice informing the Court when the documents have been distributed, (3) stay the time

26

to respond to the MSJ until after the resolution of the discovery matter, and (4) determine

27

that Plaintiff does not need to pay for the copies because of the money he has already spent

28

copying documents for this motion. (Id. at 5.) However, in his Reply, Plaintiff modifies the

1

documents he seeks, and states that if Medical Defendants simply provide “a complete

2

copy of the exhibits appended to Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts this matter can

3

proceed.” (Doc. 112 at 1.)

4

II.

MEDICAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE

5

a. Timeliness of Motion to Compel

6

In response, Medical Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is

7

untimely because that it was filed after the MSJ (May 2, 2019) and the close of discovery

8

(February 4, 2019). (MSJ, Doc. 109; Discovery Order, Doc. 86 at 9.) Medical Defendants

9

claim that they submitted their responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production on

10

December 28, 2018. (Doc. 109 at 2 (citing Doc. 103-2 at 22).) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s

11

alleged conferral with defense counsel occurred in January to February of 2019; therefore,

12

Plaintiff had ample time to raise this dispute and failed to do so until May 31, 2019. (Doc.

13

109 at 3.)

14

The Court will permit the filing because if Plaintiff’s claim that he cannot respond

15

to the MSJ without these records is taken at face value, he may not have been aware of the

16

significance of the documents until such motion was filed. Plaintiff filed the Motion to

17

Compel soon after receiving the MSJ. Moreover, the Court did not set a deadline for raising

18

discovery disputes.

19

b. Compliance with Local Rule 37.1

20

Medical Defendants also argue the Motion to Compel fails to list the specific

21

disputed discovery responses and what action Plaintiff desires. (Doc. 109 at 3.) However,

22

it is clear enough from the Reply clearly states that Plaintiff merely desires the exhibits

23

attached to the MSJ’s Statement of Facts. This is sufficiently clear to comply with the Local

24

Rule. These timeliness and compliance determinations, however, do not resolve the

25

breadth of discovery.

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

c. Objections to Request for Productions

2

i. All Medical Records

3

Next, Medical Defendants claim that the relief Plaintiff seeks – all medical records

4

from November 2016 to present – is far broader than permissible given both his allegations

5

in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and the requests for production. (Doc. 109 at 3.)

6

The FAC alleges that he suffered eye, sinus, throat, stomach, skin, and emotional problems

7

after being exposed to hazardous chemicals when working on a hazmat crew. (Doc. 26 at

8

12-13.) Similarly, the Second Request for Production asks only for medical records

9

pertaining to his eye, nose, and throat symptoms and mental health records regarding such

10

symptoms. (Doc. 103-2 at 18 ¶1, 19 ¶ 6.)

11

The Court agrees with Medical Defendants, discovery of all medical records since

12

November 2016 is overly broad given the allegations and discovery requests. However,

13

Plaintiff’s reply limits the information needed to only the exhibits related to the MSJ.

14

Medical Defendants contend that Plaintiff has already been given the attachments to the

15

Statement of Facts in support of Medical Defendants’ MSJ. (See Doc. 109 at 4.) But

16

because it appears that Plaintiff has not received the exhibits, the Court will order Medical

17

Defendants to resend them. This will resolve the issue of discovery of any and all medical

18

records.

19

ii. Production Compliance

20

Medical Defendants state that an order of compliance is unnecessary because they

21

plan on filing a notice with the Court after producing the mental health and medical records

22

pertaining to respiratory, skin, and visual complaints. (Doc. 109 at 4-5.) Despite Medical

23

Defendants’ claims of redundancy, the Court will direct them to file a notice with the Court

24

upon compliance with this Order.

25
26

Finally, Plaintiff makes a general statement that he believes Medical Defendants

27

have withheld documents. The Court may limit discovery when the information can be

28

gleaned from a “a source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” or

-3-

1

when the individual requesting the discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain [the]

2

information.” Fed.R.Civ.P 26(b)(1)(C)(i)-(ii). As demonstrated through Plaintiff’s own

3

exhibits, he has access to his records. He claims he cannot make copies because it is

4

financially prohibitive, but he is permitted to take notes when viewing his records. (See

5

Doc. 103-2 at 8.) While he had an opportunity to point out which documents he could not

6

obtain, Plaintiff has not indicated any specific record he has not been given. The Court will

7

not entertain such broad allegations and reward them with further disclosure.

8

III.

COSTS OF COPIES

9

Plaintiff wants this Court to consider his costs to litigate his Motion to Compel as

10

payment to provide all of his medical records. Civil litigants are not afforded a right to

11

copies. See In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (statute on in forma pauperis

12

proceedings “does not give a litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him

13

at the government’s expense”). Furthermore, the Court finds that Medical Defendants

14

objections were not frivolous, and in any matter, much of the medical records were already

15

provided to him through the MSJ. Because the Court instructs Medical Defendants to

16

provide the remaining limited, relevant disclosure directly to Plaintiff, it will not grant

17

Plaintiff’s proposed relief.

18
19
20
21
22

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
(Doc. 103.)
2. Plaintiff’s request for all medical records from November 2016 to present and
mental health records is DENIED.

23

3. Plaintiff’s request for exhibits connected to Medical Defendants’ Motion for

24

Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this

25

Order, Medical Defendants shall mail a copy of the exhibits directly to Plaintiff.

26

4. Plaintiff’s request to consider his costs to litigate the discovery dispute as payment

27
28

for his medical records is DENIED.
5. Defendants shall file a Notice with the Court within seven (7) days of service of

-4-

1
2

the exhibits.
6. Plaintiff shall file a Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment within

3

thirty (30) days of Medical Defendants’ Notice of Service of Discovery.

4

Dated this 9th day of July, 2019.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-