Cooper v. Griswold et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying Plaintiff's motion to compel 72 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 12/2/2015. (lej)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
AUSTIN COOPER, ADC # 078084
v.

PLAINTIFF

5:15CV00170-BSM-JJV

GRISWOLD, Assistant Nurse
Practitioner, Cummins Unit, ADC; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (“Motion”) (Doc. No. 72).
Therein, Plaintiff argues that Defendants should be compelled to produce copies of his
medical records for the last fifteen years. (Id. at 2.) Defendants have responded by arguing
that Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) policy precludes inmates from possessing
a physical copy of their medical records.1 (Doc. No. 74 at 1.) Additionally, they argue that
the fifteen year scope of Plaintiff’s request is vague and overly broad. (Id. at 1-2.) Finally,
Defendants provide evidence that they have advised the Health Services Administrator of the
current litigation and requested that Plaintiff have more liberal access to his medical records.
(Doc. No. 74-1.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied. He has not provided a
persuasive rationale for producing fifteen years of medical files. He may review the relevant

1

Plaintiff’s Motion asks for the medical records to be produced to the Court. (Doc. No. 72
at 2.) The Court has not requested these records for its own benefit, and it declines to act as a
custodian on Plaintiff’s behalf. As Defendants correctly argue, the records can be made available to
the Court at a later date should their review prove necessary. (Doc. No. 74 at 2.)
1

parts of his file using the procedures provided by the ADC.2 Plaintiff does allege that some
records have been removed from his jacket by Defendants, but it is unclear to which specific
records he is referring. (Doc. No. 72 at 1-2.) Regardless, he notes Defendants’ counsel has
denied possessing additional information. (Id. at 2.) I take these allegations seriously, but
nothing in the record convinces me that Court intervention in the discovery process is
warranted a this time. Going forward, Plaintiff should confer in good faith with opposing
counsel before filing a motion to compel.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 72) is
DENIED.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2015.

JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Plaintiff alleges that he has had difficulty using these procedures to review his medical files.
(Doc. No. 72 at 2.) Given that Defendants have recently contacted the Health Services Administrator
on his behalf, I am hopeful that this issue can be resolved without Court intervention. In the event
these difficulties persist, Plaintiff may renew the issue before the Court.
2