Watson v. Stoval, et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 43 Motion for Order; denying 19 Motion for Sanctions; denying 27 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on November 30, 2015. (mll)

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

WELTON WATSON

V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL NO. 4:15-cv-04017

SHERIFF RON STOVALL;
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS;
and WARDEN MARTY BRAZELL

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff Welton Watson filed this 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on February 5, 2015
ECF No. 1. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s: (1) Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 19);
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 27); and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (ECF No.
43).
1.

Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 19)
In Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 19) he moves the Court to sanction

Defendant Southern Health Partners for failing to participate in discovery before filing its
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendant Southern Health Partners responded arguing it had not violated any Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure by filing its Motion for Summary Judgment before conducting
discovery with Plaintiff.
Defendant Southern Health Partners has taken no action warranting sanctions. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) reads: “Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court
1

orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days
after the close of all discovery.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Further, cases filed by pro se

prisoners such as this one are not subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 disclosures.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv).
Defendant Southern Health Partners was not required to produce any initial disclosures
to Plaintiff until I entered the Initial Scheduling Order directing it to do so. ECF No. 18.
Defendant Southern Health Partners filed its Motion for Summary Judgment prior to the entry
of the Initial Scheduling Order. Therefore, Defendant Southern Health Partners was in no way
violating any Court orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by filing its Motion for
Summary Judgment before producing initial disclosures or participating in discovery with
Plaintiff.
Moreover, Defendant Southern Health Partners has not produced to Plaintiff the Court
required initial disclosures (ECF No. 32), and Plaintiff will have a chance to respond to the
Motion for Summary Judgment, using these disclosures, at the upcoming hearing.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.
2.

Motion to Compel (ECF No. 27)
In his Motion to Compel (ECF No. 27), Plaintiff asserts Defendant Southern Health

Partners did not produce Plaintiff’s full and complete medical file from his incarceration in the
Miller County Detention Center from January 7, 2015 to February 2, 2015.

In response,

Defendant Southern Health Partners represented it initially believed Plaintiff’s complete medical
file was produced in the initial disclosures produced on June 5, 2015. On July 16, 2015,
however, ten (10) additional pages of Plaintiff’s medical file were located and sent to Plaintiff
2

as a supplement to the initial disclosures. Defendant Southern Health Partners affirmatively
states Plaintiff now has a complete copy of his medical file.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 27) is DENIED as moot.
3.

Motion for Order (ECF No. 43)
In Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (ECF No. 43), he requests I “change the scheduling

order” by moving “scheduling times forward.” It is unclear exactly what Plaintiff seeks through
this Motion. A hearing is scheduled in this matter on December 11, 2015 and Defendants
represent they have produced all discovery to Plaintiff in this matter. There are no dates to
move forward at this time. The hearing will proceed as scheduled.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (ECF No. 43) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November 2015.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3