Miller v. Buchanan et al

Filing 52

ORDER: The plaintiff's motion to compel 36 is granted in part and denied in part. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 6/6/2017. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
OMAR MILLER,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
MARK BUCHANAN,
Defendant.

CASE NO.

3:14cv766(RNC)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
The plaintiff, who is self-represented, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendant, Dr. Mark
Buchanan, was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before
the court is the plaintiff's motion to compel.1 (Doc. #36.)

The

court heard oral argument on June 6, 2017 and rules on the requests
as follows:
A.

Plaintiff's First Production Requests
1.

Production Request 1 is granted.

Defense counsel shall

notify the Health Services Coordinator Rikel Lightner to give the
plaintiff access to the requested manual by June 13, 2017.
2.

Production

Request

2

is

denied

in

light

of

the

defendant's response that no responsive documents exist.
3.

The plaintiff revised Production Requests 3 and 4 during

oral argument to request the name of the vendor UCHC used before it
switched distributors in November 2011.

1

The defendant agreed to

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny referred the motion to
undersigned. (Doc. #37.)

provide this information. Production Requests 3 and 4, as revised,
are granted absent objection.
4.

Production Requests 7, 8 and 9 are granted as follows.

The defendant shall (1) make a good faith effort to produce
responsive documents from the specific resources identified by the
plaintiff in his motion and (2) provide an updated response by June
13, 2017.
B.

Requests for Admission
5.

The plaintiff's motion to determine the sufficiency of

the defendant's answer to Request for Admission 4 is denied.2
6.

The

motion

to

determine

the

sufficiency

of

the

defendant's answer to Request for Admission 14 is granted.

The

defendant will provide an amended answer in which he explains his
response in greater detail and with more clarity.
C.

Interrogatories
7.

Interrogatory

2

is

denied

without

prejudice.

The

plaintiff shall (1) reword the interrogatory to be more clear and
attach the relevant document and (2) serve the request on defense
counsel by June 13, 2017.
20, 2017.

The defendant's response is due by June

If necessary, the plaintiff may file a motion to compel

as to the interrogatory by June 27, 2017.
8.

As to Interrogatories 7 and 8 and Second Request for

2

Pursuant to Production Request 3 and 4, the defendant shall
provide the plaintiff with the name of the vendor.
2

Production 2, defense counsel stated during oral argument that the
defendant did not have access to the plaintiff's medical records.
The plaintiff indicated that he would authorize the defendant to
have access to his health information so that the defendant could
respond more fully to the requests.

By June 9, 2017, defense

counsel shall send the plaintiff an authorization form so that he
may authorize
defendant.

the

release

of

his

medical

information

to

the

Upon review of the plaintiff's medical records, the

defendant shall serve an amended answer to these requests by June
20, 2017.
9.

Interrogatories 9 and 10 are denied.

10.

Interrogatory 16 is granted.

The defendant shall serve

an amended answer that clearly responds to the query.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 6th day of June,
2017.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

3