Pinkston v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees et al

Filing 155

ORDER: Plaintiff shall, by April 19, 2016, deliver to the undersigned's chambers, and serve upon counsel for Defendants, a doctor's note or a statement signed by a hospital representative, verifying the date and the duration of each parent's hospitalization. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/14/2016. (BLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RACHEL PINKSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-1724-T-33TBM

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
On March 31, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff Rachel
Pinkston to deliver documents, medical records, or doctor’s
statements regarding her parents’ hospitalizations to the
Court for in camera review. (Doc. # 147). On April 6, 2016,
Pinkston

filed

a

Motion

for

Reconsideration/Relief,

requesting the Court to reconsider the March 31, 2016, Order.
(Doc. # 150). The Court denied Pinkston’s Motion on April 8,
2016, advising that “[p]roof of hospitalization is necessary
for the Court to determine whether sanctions are appropriate
in this case.” (Doc. # 153 at 5).
In its April 8, 2016, Order, the Court directed Pinkston
to submit (1) “formal proof of hospitalization, verifying the
date and the duration of each parent’s hospitalization,” or
(2) “a note from each parent's healthcare provider, i.e., the

treating physician, confirming the date and duration of each
parent’s

hospitalization.”

(Id.).

The

Court

instructed

Pinkston that “[t]he documents should be delivered directly
to the undersigned’s chambers in a sealed envelope marked in
camera” no later than April 15, 2016. (Id. at 6).
On

April

8,

2016,

Pinkston

filed

her

Notice

of

Compliance, agreeing to submit the requested documents. (Doc.
# 154). Thereafter, on April 11, 2016, the Court received
several documents from Pinkston relating to her parents’
hospitalizations. However, these documents do not comply with
the Court’s March 31, or April 8, 2016, Orders.
As previously ordered, Pinkston must provide the Court
with

formal

proof

of

the

dates

that

each

parent

was

hospitalized. This information is necessary to determine
whether Pinkston has been forthcoming regarding (1) the need
to continue the March 3, 2016, telephonic hearing; (2) the
reason Pinkston failed to attend her independent medical
examination
requested

on

March

additional

10,
time

2016;
to

(3)

comply

the
with

reason
the

Pinkston

Magistrate

Judge’s discovery Orders; and (4) the reason her parents
neglected to attend their depositions on March 8, 2016.
As to the March 3, 2016, telephonic hearing, Pinkston
has submitted no proof that her mother was hospitalized on

2 

that date. At most, the submitted documents indicate that
Pinkston’s mother underwent medical testing on March 3, 2016,
but do not reveal specifically that she was in the hospital
or intensive care at the time. Pinkston fails to provide the
Court with any documentation of the dates her mother was
admitted

to

and

discharged

from

the

hospital.

From

the

documents submitted, the Court cannot determine the duration
of

Pinkston’s

mother’s

hospitalization.

Thus,

the

Court

cannot verify Pinkston’s claim that on the evening of March
2, 2016, when she filed her Emergency Motion for Continuance,
her

mother

was

“currently

hospitalized

and

receiving

intensive medical treatment.” (Doc. # 93 at 1).
Furthermore, the documents do not explain Pinkston’s
absence from the independent medical examination on March 10,
2016. Pinkston submitted hospital records, which confirm that
her father was hospitalized on that date. However, Pinkston
has not presented any documents that support her prior claim
that she brought her father to the hospital at 8:00 AM. (See
Doc. # 104 at 2). Rather, the documents only indicate that
Pinkston’s father was not admitted to the hospital until 3:21
PM. The documents do not include the time that Pinkston’s
father

first

arrived

at

the

hospital.

Without

this

information, Pinkston has not demonstrated to the Court why

3 

she could not attend the independent medical examination at
11:00 AM, or why she could not inform defendants’ counsel of
her expected absence.
After the March 3, 2016, hearing, the Magistrate Judge
ordered Pinkston to provide full and complete responses to
Defendants’

interrogatories

and

requests

for

production.

(Doc. # 97 at 7). On March 10, 2016, Pinkston then filed her
Motion for Relief from Court Order, in which she requested
that any noncompliance with the Order be considered excusable
and asked that no activity take place in the case for seven
days. (Doc. # 104 at 2). Pinkston claimed that she “is not
willfully or defiantly disregarding any Order of the Court
and would do no such thing. [She] is and has been extremely
busy with both parents having serious medical emergencies
simultaneously.” (Id.). However, the documents submitted to
the Court do not provide the dates and durations of her
parents’ hospitalizations such that the Court can determine
whether her failure to comply with the Court Order was
justified or excusable.
Finally, the documents that Pinkston has provided do not
explain her parents’ failure to attend their depositions.
Pinkston’s mother and father were each served on February 25,
2016, with a Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition. (Doc. ##

4 

110-5, 110-6). The subpoenas informed each parent they were
required to testify at depositions on March 8, 2016, and
advised that the Court “may hold in contempt a person who,
having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or an order related to it.” (Doc. ## 110-5 at 3, 5;
110-6 at 3, 5).
The Court recognizes that Pinkston is not responsible
for her parents’ behavior. Nonetheless, the Court is troubled
that neither Pinkston’s mother nor her father asked to be
excused from their scheduled depositions. In addition, the
documents that Pinkston has provided do not contain enough
information

to

explain

her

parents’

absence

from

their

depositions. The documents do not confirm that Pinkston’s
mother was hospitalized on March 8, 2016; nor do they indicate
that her father was unavailable for his deposition on March
8, 2016; nor do they explain her parents’ decision not to
notify defense counsel of their expected absence.
This Court has “repeatedly stressed to Pinkston[] [that]
her compliance with Court Orders and discovery requests is
necessary to prevent sanctions, which could include dismissal
of this action.” (Doc. # 153 at 5). The Court has given
Pinkston several opportunities to provide formal proof of her
parents’ hospitalizations and has even permitted Pinkston to

5 

submit these documents in camera and ex parte. The Court
recognizes that this placed the Defendants in a difficult
position, but it did so in an effort to give Pinskton every
opportunity to comply with the Court’s Orders while still
protecting the privacy of her parents’ medical information.
In an abundance of fairness, the Court will give Pinkston
one last opportunity to produce the requested documentation
in

camera.

However,

in

the

interest

of

fairness

and

transparency to the Defendants, the Court will not allow
Pinkston to submit these documents ex parte. The Court again
emphasizes that it does not wish to invade Pinkston’s parents’
privacy – a simple note from a treating physician as to the
dates and times of hospitalization will do. The Court has no
interest in learning about the treatment options, diagnoses,
or other personal medical information.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff shall, by April 19, 2016, deliver to the
undersigned’s

chambers,

and

serve

upon

counsel

for

Defendants, a doctor’s note or a statement signed by a
hospital representative, verifying the date and the duration
of each parent’s hospitalization.

6 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
14th day of April, 2016.

7