Jones v. Hobbs et al
ORDER denying 125 Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel; denying 126 Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel; granting 127 Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of subpoenas duces tecum; and denying Plaintiff's 128 Motion for Supplemental Disclosures and Responses. Dispositive motion deadline is extended to 5/9/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 03/26/2014. (kcs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
MEGAN BOND, Varner Unit Infirmary,
Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.
Plaintiff, David Jones, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging, among other
things, that Defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical care for injuries
he sustained to his wrist, ribs, ankle, and back when he fell down a flight of stairs at
the Varner Super Max Unit on June 17, 2011. Plaintiff has recently filed several
nondispositive Motions, which the Court will address separately.
I. Second Motion to Compel
Plaintiff has filed a Motion alleging that Defendants Demery and SynderHudgens have not responded to unspecified discovery requests he mailed to them on
January 15, 2014. Doc. 125. Defendants Demery and Synder-Hudgens state that they
are not aware of any unanswered discovery requests that were sent to them by
Plaintiff. Doc. 129. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, they have recently
mailed Plaintiff additional copies of their discovery answers. Id. Thus, it appears that
this discovery matter has now been resolved.
Plaintiff also alleges that the ADC Defendants have failed to provide him with
a copy of ADC Health Services Policy 800. Doc. 125. Defendants explain that the
policy describes the process opening and verifying medical entries, ordering
prescriptions by telephone, inventorying supplies, and other housekeeping matters that
have no bearing on the merits of Plaintiff's inadequate medical care claim. Docs. 129
& 130. Additionally, Defendants claim that the policy could be used by prisoners to
alter, forge, or intercept confidential medical information. Id.
The Court concludes that legitimate security concerns prevent Defendants from
providing Plaintiff with a copy of ADC Health Services Policy 800, which is also
irrelevant to the merits of his inadequate medical care claim. Thus, Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Compel is denied.
II. Third Motion to Compel
Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking the Court to compel Defendants to produce
a copy of his prison medical records. Doc. 126. Defendants correctly objected to this
request because legitimate security concerns prevent prisoners from having such
documents in their possession while in prison. Docs. 129 & 130. Additionally,
Plaintiff admits that he has been able to review his prison medical file. Doc. 126. If
Defendants file a Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff can ask them for copies of
relevant portions of his prison medical file that are not already attached to Defendants'
Motion. If Defendants do not provide such copies, Plaintiff should promptly refile his
Motion to Compel. Further, if this case proceeds to trial, the Court will order
Defendants to provide Plaintiff with copies of the relevant prison records and to bring
Plaintiff’s complete prison file to Court. Thus, Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel is
III. Motion for Subpoenas Duces Tecum
Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking the Court to subpoena medical records from
St. Vincent's Hospital, UAMS, and Forest Park Medical Center for medical treatment
he received in 2006 and 2008 for his back, neck, and hand. Doc. 127. Although it
is unclear, it appears that these records could be relevant to Plaintiff's assertion that
his June 2011 fall exacerbated prior injuries he sustained during a 2006 car accident.
Accordingly, the Motion is granted, and the Court will instruct the Clerk to issue the
subpoenas duces tecum.
IV. Motion for Supplemental Disclosures and Responses
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Supplemental Disclosures and Responses. Doc.
128. In that pleading, Plaintiff states that he needs additional time to conduct
discovery because Defendants' discovery responses, in general, have been
unsatisfactory. Id. Plaintiff has not explained: (1) how Defendants' responses to any
specific discovery requests are improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(2) what additional discovery he needs to conduct; (3) why he has been able to do so
in the three months previously allowed for discovery; or (4) how much additional time
he needs. Additionally, Defendants state that they have already responded to
numerous discovery requests and provided Plaintiff with approximately 300 pages of
requested documents. Docs. 129 & 130.
Accordingly, the Motion for Supplemental Disclosures and Responses, which
has been construed as a request for an extension of time to engage in further
discovery, is denied. However, the Court will briefly extend the dispositive motion
deadline to allow for the service of the subpoenas duces tecum and distribution of the
produced medical records to the parties.
Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel (Doc. 125) is DENIED.
Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel (Doc. 126) is DENIED.
Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Disclosures and Responses (Doc.
128) is DENIED.
Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoenas Duces Tecum (Doc. 127) is GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to prepare three subpoenas duces tecum for the medical records
listed in the Motion. The recipients will have fourteen days from service to produce
the specified medical records to the Court, which will then distribute any produced
medical records to the parties.
The dispositive motion deadline is extended to May 9, 2014.
Dated this 26th day of March, 2014.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?