McCall v. Sanders et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting 40 Defendants' Motion to Compel; denying 45 Plaintiff's Motion to Depose By Written Questions, Mr. Anthony Banks; denying 46 Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 05/30/2012. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

JAMIE SHAWN MCCALL,
ADC #610019
V.

PLAINTIFF
4:11CV00745 DPM/JTR

COTI SANDERS, Aramark Supervisor; and
STEVE PENNINGTON, Aramark Supervisor

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Jamie Shawn McCall, has commenced this pro se § 1983 action
alleging that, on September 13, 2011, he chemically burned his arms while cleaning
ovens at the Pulaski County Detention Center (“PCDC”). See docket entry #2.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants Sanders and Pennington, who were his supervisors
at the PCDC kitchen, knowingly failed to provide him with the proper safety gear and
deliberately misled him about the dangers of applying the chemicals without
protective equipment.1 There are several discovery Motions pending, which the Court
will discuss separately.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose By Written Questions
1

Defendants Sanders and Pennington work for Aramark, which is a private
company, and not the PCDC.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion seeking permission to depose by written questions
Mr. Anthony Banks, who is an Aramark employee that allegedly witnessed Plaintiff
burn his arms. See docket entry #45.
Plaintiff has not explained how he will pay the costs for taking the proposed
deposition by written questions, or make the arrangements for taking such a
deposition as specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(a)(1) and 31(b). It is well settled that in
forma pauperis statute does not provide for the payment of costs associated with
taking depositions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f); Lewis v. Precision Optics, Inc., 612 F.2d
1074 (8th Cir. 1980).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. If this case survives the filing of any
dispositive motions and proceeds to trial, the Court will allow Plaintiff to subpoena
Mr. Banks and any other non-party witnesses whom Plaintiff can establish may offer
relevant testimony.
II. Defendants’ Motion to Compel and
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order
In April of 2012, Plaintiff refused to sign a Medical Authorization allowing
Defendants to obtain all of his medical records from the PCDC. See docket entry #40.
According to Plaintiff, he has been confined in the PCDC “numerous times over the
past 18 years.” See docket entry #46 at 2. Thus, his PCDC medical file is “literally
three inches thick,” and contains private health information about treatment he
-2-

received over the last eighteen years for a variety of irrelevant, unrelated, and
potentially embarrassing medical and mental health problems. Id. Accordingly,
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a Protective Order authorizing Defendants to obtain
only his PCDC medical records regarding the treatment he received for the September
13, 2011 injuries to his arms. Id.
In their Motion to Compel, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has put his medical
condition in issue, and thus, they are entitled to all of his PCDC medical records. See
docket entry #40.
Plaintiff’s medical records may contain relevant information about a host of
medical problems, conditions, or allergies that have a direct bearing on the alleged
“chemical burns” he received while cleaning ovens at the PCDC. Accordingly,
Defendants’ Motion to Compel is granted, and Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective
Order is denied. Plaintiff must, within fourteen days of the entry of this Order,
sign and return the Medical Authorization forms to Defendants, which authorizes
them to review all of his medical records from the PCDC. Plaintiff is advised that if
he fails to timely and properly do so, this case may be dismissed, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v).

III. Conclusion

-3-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose By Written Questions (docket entry #45)

is DENIED.
2.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel (docket entry #40) is GRANTED.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order (docket entry #46) is DENIED.

Dated this 30th day of May, 2012.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-