TERRELL v. DAVIS

Filing 88

ORDER DENYING 84 Motion for Subpoena; DENYING 85 Motion for Subpoena ; DENYING 87 Motion for Subpoena; and GRANTING 86 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff has up to and including October 18, 2019, to file a motion for reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 10/1/2019. (kat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WILLIE JAMES TERRELL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA DENIESE DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-441 (MTT)

ORDER
Plaintiff Terrell moves for the Court to issue subpoenas and for a second
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. Docs. 84; 85; 86; 87.
The motion for a second extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration
(Doc. 86) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 18, 2019
to file a motion for reconsideration. For the following reasons, the motions for the
issuance of subpoenas (Docs. 84; 85; 87) are DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff alleges he was assaulted by other inmates and was injured in his
chest, elbow, and hip. Doc. 59 at 1. Prison medical staff referred him for CT scans and
X-rays. Id. at 2. On August 3, he was transported to a regional hospital and then to a
hospital in Augusta for X-rays of his pelvis, arm, and chest, as well as CT scans of his
head and neck. Id. Although the medical imaging revealed no abnormalities apart from
soft-tissue swelling in the elbow, the Plaintiff now believes he had a broken arm at the
time and continues to suffer from a hairline fracture in his hip. Id. at 3. He brought suit

against Defendants Kitchens and Dixon, who accompanied him to the hospital, for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, alleging they attempted to dissuade
the Plaintiff and the doctors from performing some of the X-rays and CT scans. Id. On
July 22, 2019, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to grant the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims. Doc. 77. The Court granted
the Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. Doc.
82.
The Plaintiff now moves for the issuance of subpoenas. He wishes the Court to
subpoena Verizon Wireless, Inc. for the Defendants’ text messages and multimedia
messages. Doc. 84. He also requests the Court to subpoena medical records and
expert testimony from various doctors and to order a doctor to submit “a
written/typewritten opinion comparing the images and reports to make a determination
of worsening of conditions; and is a disability claim of impairment most likely to result.”
Docs. 84; 84-1; 84-2; 85-1.
II. DISCUSSION
Those requests are denied. First, the time for discovery has passed—in fact,
judgment was entered on July 23, 2019—and the Plaintiff has not shown any
justification for allowing additional discovery at this late stage. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4) (stating a schedule may only be modified for good cause). The discovery
period was ninety days from the date the Defendant filed an answer or dispositive
motion. Doc. 11 at 14. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 30, 2018;
the Court entered a stay pending resolution of the motion to dismiss on April 2, 2018;
and, as the Court explained to the Plaintiff, “discovery automatically recommenced in

-2-

this case upon the resolution of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 20,
2018.” Docs. 20; 35; 38. Discovery, therefore, expired in December 2018. Eight
months later and after the entry of judgment, the Plaintiff, in effect, moved to compel the
production of more documents and evidence to bolster his claims. The motion is
untimely. And even if the motion were not untimely, the requested subpoenas are
clearly overbroad, unduly burdensome, and unnecessary.
III. CONCLUSION
For those reasons, the Plaintiff’s motions for a subpoena (Docs. 84; 85; 87) are
DENIED. The motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc.
86) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff has up to and including October 18, 2019, to file a
motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of October, 2019.
s/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-