Rodriguez v. Chavez et al
Filing
155
MINUTE ORDER granting 143 Denver Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses, as set forth in the order. Plaintiff Irene Rodriguez shall provide to the Denver Defendants a full and complete response to the Denver Defendants' Request for Production (RFP) No. 2 on or before 11/7/2014. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/28/2014.(emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01071-PAB-MJW
IRENE RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTINE CHAVEZ,
JOEY GASCA,
KRISTY GARCIA, and
DAMON BOWSER,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Denver Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s
Discovery Responses (docket no. 143) is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(3)(B) and finding good cause shown.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Irene Rodriguez shall provide to the
Denver Defendants a full and complete response to the Denver Defendants’ Request
for Production (“RFP”) No. 2 on or before November 7, 2014. Such response shall
include records reflecting treatment that Plaintiff testified about in her deposition and
assessment records by the paramedics at the scene of Plaintiff’s arrest on April 22,
2010 and medical records reflecting treatment Plaintiff received after February 7, 2011
to the present. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for the subject
motion (docket no. 143), since this court finds under the facts and circumstances
presented here an award of expenses would be unjust.
In the subject motion (docket no. 143) Denver Defendants seek two groups of
medical records: (1) records reflecting assessment by the paramedics at the scene of
the arrest; and (2) records from Ms. Rodriguez’s treating physician reflecting treatment
and physical therapy Ms. Rodriguez allegedly received between 2011 and 2013.
Denver Defendants argue that Plaintiff only provided them with 17 pages of
records from the Rocky Mountain Internal Medicine where Dr. Weintraub is a physician.
Such records did not include: (1) any records from the paramedics which assessed
Plaintiff at the scene of the arrest; and (2) any disclosure of any medical records
reflecting treatment she received after February 7, 2011. Moreover, the Denver
Defendants argue that Plaintiff revealed in her deposition that she has received medical
treatment over the last three years for which records have not been produced. See
Exhibit 1 attached to subject motion (docket no. 143) - Plaintiff’s deposition transcript at
p. 81, I. 19-21; 82: 17-24; and 84: 4-22. Denver Defendants further argue that as of the
date of the filing of the subject motion (docket no. 143), Plaintiff has not provided the
ambulance records (which would have been created on April 22, 2010, the date of
arrest) or the requested medical records for treatment received between 2011 to the
present (as described by Plaintiff during her deposition).
Plaintiff argues that the subject motion (docket no. 143) should denied since
Denver Defendants’ Attorney did not meet and confer as required under
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1. before filing the subject motion (docket no. 143). Plaintiff further
argues that the subject motion (docket no. 143) should be denied since Plaintiff
provided to the Denver Defendants the Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1)
Disclosures which contain the following documents:
1.
Updated medical records and doctor reports, Rocky Mountain Internal
Medicine, 1360 S. Potomac Street, Aurora, Colorado 80012 [12 pages];
2.
Updated Patient Ledger Rocky Mountain Internal Medicine, 1360 S.
Potomac Street, Aurora, Colorado 80012 [2 pages];
3.
Health Insurance Claim Forms, Rocky Mountain Internal Medicine, 1360
S. Potomac Street, Aurora, Colorado 80012 [3 pages];
4.
Denver Health Medical Center, Paramedic Division records dated April 22,
2010 at 4325 Morrison Road, #15. There is no name associated with
these records [2 pages].
Plaintiff argues that these records listed above [ paragraphs numbered 1-4,
inclusive] respond to Denver Defendants’ RFP No. 1. See letter dated September 16,
2014 from Plaintiff’s Attorney Kenny Padilla (docket no. 152-4).
Date: October 28, 2014
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?