Caldwell v. Kelly et al

Filing 79

ORDER granting in part as specified herein 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; granting in part as specified herein 61 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; granting in part as specified herein 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; and denying 67 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 12/01/2014. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JOHN CALDWELL,
ADC #90188
V.

PLAINTIFF
5:14CV00042 BSM/JTR

WENDY KELLEY,
Deputy Director of Health Services, ADC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, John Caldwell, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that
Defendants Iko, Floss, York, and Kelley failed to provide him with constitutionally
inadequate medical care. Plaintiff has four Motions asking the Court to compel each
of the Defendants to further answer his discovery requests.1 The Court will address
each Motion separately.

1

Defendants York, Iko, and Floss, who are represented by the same attorney, argue that
Plaintiff's Motions to Compel are improper because they do not contain a good faith certification,
as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Docs. 69, 70, & 71. Because prisoners have limited access
to telephones and mailing supplies, the Court's general practice is to not require them to confer in
good faith prior to filing a Motion to Compel. Defendants York, Iko, and Floss do not otherwise
address the arguments made in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Instead, they merely stand on the
objections made in their initial responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Doing so is improper.
In the future, counsel's responses to any motions to compel must specifically explain why each
challenged discovery request is improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If counsel
asserts that the security risks or confidentiality prevent disclosure of any requested information, a
copy of the requested document must be filed under seal and counsel must explain, with specificity,
why that particular document or information should not be released to the plaintiff.

I. Motion to Compel Defendant Iko
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was in the Varner Unit in May of 2013,
Defendant Dr. Iko canceled his fifteen-year prescription for orthopedic shoes and
arthritis medication.
A.

Interrogatories 11 & 15
In Interrogatory 11, Plaintiff asked Defendant Iko "what motivated you to

cancel all established medical care for fifteen (15) years of chronic care case history,
concerning Plaintiff John Caldwell." Doc. 71-1 at 5. Similarly, in Interrogatory 15,
Plaintiff asked Defendant Iko to identify "any rule, regulation, publication, directive,
or other source" that she used when reaching her decision. Id. at 6. Defendant Iko
correctly objected to those discovery requests as being over broad, argumentative, and
assuming facts not in evidence. Although the interrogatories were improperly worded,
Plaintiff is entitled to know why Defendants Iko made her May 2013 decision.
Thus, the Motion to Compel is granted, as modified, as to Interrogatories 11 &
15. Defendant Iko must file, within fourteen days of the entry of this Order, a
Supplemental Response explaining: (1) why she decided, in May of 2013, to cancel
Plaintiff's prescription for orthopedic shoes and arthritis medication; and (2) whether
she relied on any ADC directives of policies when making that decision.
B.

Interrogatory 13
-2-

In Interrogatory 13, Plaintiff asked Defendant Iko how many other patients she
canceled orthopedic footwear for in 2013. Id. at 6. The issue in this case is whether
Defendant Iko provided adequate medical care to Plaintiff. Information about medical
care Defendant Iko provided to other patients is irrelevant to that issue. Thus, the
Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory 13.
C.

Interrogatory 17
In Interrogatory 17, Plaintiff asked Dr. Iko to list any civil actions that have

been filed against her. Id. at 7. That interrogatory improperly seeks information that
is irrelevant to the specific inadequate medical care claim Plaintiff has raised against
Defendant Iko in this lawsuit.

Thus, the Motion to Compel is denied as to

Interrogatory 17.
II. Motion to Compel Defendant Deborah York
Defendant York is the Infirmary Manager at the Varner Unit. Plaintiff alleges
that, in May of 2013, she denied him adequate medical care when she approved
Defendant Iko's decision to cancel his prescription for orthopedic shoes and arthritis
medication.
A.

Interrogatories 5, 10, 11, & 16
In Interrogatories 5 and 16, Plaintiff asked Defendant York to describe every

civil lawsuit and disciplinary action that have ever been instituted against her. Doc.
-3-

60 at 11 & 15. Similarly, in Interrogatories 10 and 11, Plaintiff asked Defendant York
the number of Varner Unit inmates who had their prescriptions for orthopedic shoes
canceled in 2013. Id. at 13.
The issue in this case is whether Defendant York failed to provide
constitutionally adequate medical care to Plaintiff, and not to any other prisoners or
patients. Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant York that these discovery requests
improperly seek irrelevant information. Thus, the Motion to Compel is denied as to
Interrogatories 5, 10, 11, and 16.
B.

Interrogatories 6, 12, 13, & 14.
In Interrogatory 6, Plaintiff asked Defendant York to "state how funding was

appropriated at the Varner Unit, ADC, specifically to purchase chronic care
orthopedic footwear and treatment. Was it as needed, quarterly, proportional by
population, or how, be specific." Id. at 12. The Court agrees with Defendants that
this discovery request is over broad and improper to the extent that it seeks funding
information that may have had no bearing on the May 2013 decision to cancel his
prescription for orthopedic shoes. Thus, the Court will order Defendant York to
explain whether state funding played a roll in her May 2013 decision to terminate
Plaintiff's prescription for orthopedic shoes.
In Interrogatories 12, 13, & 14 Plaintiff asked Defendant York why, in May of
-4-

2013, she: (1) approved the cancellation of his orthopedic shoe and arthritis
medication; (2) personally discussed those reasons with Plaintiff; and (3) considered
any rule, regulation, or directive when making her decision. Id. at 13-14. Defendant
York improperly responded to these discovery requests by referring Plaintiff to his
medical records, in total, instead of explaining her personal recollection.
Thus, the Motion to Compel is granted, as modified, as to Interrogatories 6, 12,
13, & 14. Defendant York must, within fourteen days of the entry of this Order,
file a Supplemental Response explaining: (1) why she approved Defendant Iko's May
2013 decision to cancel Plaintiff's prescription for orthopedic shoes and arthritis
medication; (2) any funding considerations that played a role in her decision; and (3)
any specific ADC directives, rules, or policies that she considered when making that
decision.
III. Motion to Compel Defendant Floss
Defendant Dr. Floss is the Regional Director for Corizon, Inc., which is the
corporation that provides healthcare to ADC prisoners. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Floss approved Defendant Iko's May 2013 decision to cancel Plaintiff's prescription
for orthopedic shoes and arthritis medication. Sometime thereafter, Defendant Floss
allegedly denied an ADC doctor's recommendation that Plaintiff be examined by an
orthopedic specialist.
-5-

A.

Interrogatories 4, 6, & 15
In Interrogatories 4, 6, and 15, Plaintiff asked Defendant Floss to list every civil

action, medical board disciplinary action, and employer disciplinary action that has
ever been initiated against him. Doc. 61 at 12 & 15. As previously discussed, that
request improperly seeks irrelevant information. Thus, the Motion to Compel is denied
as to Interrogatories 4, 6, and 15.
B.

Interrogatory 5
In Interrogatory 5, Plaintiff asked Defendant Floss if he was "awarded any

incentive financial bonuses" while working for Corizon, Inc. Doc. 61 at 12. The
Court agrees with Defendant Floss that this request is over broad and seeks irrelevant
information about Defendant Floss's compensation. Thus, the Motion to Compel is
denied as to Interrogatory 5.
C.

Interrogatories 7, 10, & 13
In Interrogatory 7, Plaintiff asked Defendant Floss if Corizon, Inc. appropriated

funding "for the Varner Unit specifically to purchase chronic care orthopedic shoes
and treatment, including out of unit consults; as it was needed, quarterly proportional
by population, or how, specify." Doc. 61 at 13. In Interrogatory 10, Plaintiff asked
Defendant Floss what "motivated you to cancel" the prescription for orthopedic shoes
and "block further consult requests." Id. at 14. Finally, in Interrogatory 13, Plaintiff
-6-

asked Defendant Floss to identify any Corizon, Inc. policy or rule that caused him to
"contradict the opinions of the past 15 years" and "cancel all his established medical
care." Id. Defendant Floss refused to answer all three discovery requests as being
argumentative and speculative.
Although poorly worded, these discovery requests properly seek the reasons for
Defendant Floss's decisions. Thus, the Motion to Compel is granted, as modified, as
to Interrogatories 7, 10, & 13. Defendant Floss must file, within fourteen days of the
entry of this Order, a Supplemental Response explaining: (1) why he approved the
Defendant Iko's May 2013 recommendation to cancel Plaintiff's prescription for
orthopedic shoe and arthritis medication; (2) why he denied an ADC doctor's
subsequent request to have Plaintiff examined by an orthopedic specialist; and (3)
what, if any, corporate budget concerns or specific policy considerations he relied on
when making either decision.
D.

Interrogatory 11
In Interrogatory 11, Plaintiff asked Defendant Floss the number of Varner Unit

prisoners who had their orthopedic shoe prescriptions canceled in 2013. As previously
explained, that information is irrelevant to the issues in this case. Thus, Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory 11.
IV. Motion to Compel Defendant Kelley
-7-

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kelley, who is the ADC Deputy Director, failed
to take proper corrective action after reviewing his grievances about his medical care
and job assignment.
In these Interrogatory 11 and Request for Production 3, Plaintiff asked
Defendant Kelley to identify and produce copies of any ADC policies, rules, or
directives that authorized her approval of his job assignment and the cancellation of
his orthopedic shoes. Doc. 68-1 at 2 & 3. Defendant Kelley responded that she was
not aware of any responsive documents. The Court cannot order Defendant Kelley
to produce what does not exist.
In Interrogatories 14 & 17, discovery requests, Plaintiff asked Defendant Kelley
the total number of prison grievances she denied in 2013 and to list every lawsuit in
which she has been a defendant. Defendant Kelley properly objected to those
discovery requests as seeking information that is irrelevant to the specific claims
raised by Plaintiff in this lawsuit. Thus, the Motion to Compel Defendant Kelley is
denied.
V. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Iko to supplement her discovery

responses (Doc. 62) is GRANTED IN PART, as specified in this Order.
-8-

2.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant York to supplement her

discovery responses (Doc. 60) is GRANTED IN PART, as specified herein.
3.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Floss to supplement his

discovery responses (Doc. 61) is GRANTED IN PART, as specified herein.
4.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Defendant Kelley to supplement

her discovery responses (Doc. 67) is DENIED.
Dated this 1st day of December, 2014.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-9-