Young v. Ritter et al

Filing 105

ORDER re: 97 Plaintiff's entitled Statement Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery Rule 37(a)(2) filed by Michael Gene Young I construe the filing as a motion to compel (the Motion). The Motion is DENIED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/11/09. (erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 07-cv-02041-CMA-BNB MICHAEL GENE YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS A. ESKESTRAND, M.D., ORVILLE NEUFELD, PhD D.O., R. LINDSAY LILLY JR., M.D., LOUIS CABLING, M.D., GARY A. GO, M.D., KELLY WASKO, RN, THEODORE LAWRENCE, PA, TEJENDER SINGH, PA, PATTY BEECROFT, M.D., DANNY ENGLUND, M.D., JOSEPH WERMERS, M.D., DEBRA HOWE, RN, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE 1-50, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter is before me on the a filing by the plaintiff entitled Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery Rule 37(a)(2) [Doc. #97, filed 4/8/09]. I construe the filing as a motion to compel (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED. In his second request for production of documents, the plaintiff requested from defendant Patty Beecroft, M.D., the following: Produce employee files and records including grievances filed against them, law suites [sic] pending or settled filed against them, any and all records pertaining to information as to reasons for their

dismissal/release as employees from the Department of Corrections. Defendant Patty Beecroft's Responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents [Doc. #103] (the "Response"), Ex. A, Request No. 1. Dr. Beecroft objected to the request on several bases, including relevancy because the plaintiff's allegations against her relate to specific medical treatment she provided to the plaintiff. Id. at Response No. 1. The plaintiff seeks an order compelling this discovery. However, he does not specify how the requested documents are relevant to his claims; he merely speculates that because Dr. Beecroft is no longer an employee of the Department of Corrections, she must have been terminated because of her treatment of him and other inmates. I find that the request is overbroad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Complaints concerning treatment in other cases is not relevant to the plaintiff's treatment here. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future applications for relief shall be in the form of a motion. Dated May 11, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge

2