Griggs v. Davis et al

Filing 132

ORDER granting in part 129 Motion to Stay Discovery with deadlines modified as follows: discovery due by 10/23/2019; Joint Status Report due by 10/23/2019; and Motions due by 11/22/2019; granting 130 MOTION for Leave to Proceed by Next Friend a nd adding Martha Thompson as Next Friend for Cameron Maddox; granting 131 Motion to Seal Document and directing the Clerk to file Dr. Norman's unredacted report under seal. Any further extension requests will have to be addressed to the presiding District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 07/16/2019. (jlh) Modified on 7/16/2019 (jlh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
EUGENE GRIGGS and CAMERON
MADDOX,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
VERNEAL EVANS, Former Correctional
)
Officer; JANSON CREAGER, Correctional )
Officer; TREI BLUITT, Correctional Officer; )
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 117-089

ORDER
_________
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal,
Motion for Leave to Proceed By Next Friend, and Motion to Stay Discovery and Motions
Deadlines as to Plaintiff Cameron Maddox. (Doc. nos. 129-131.)
Plaintiffs seek to file under seal the unredacted version of the report by Dr. Matthew
W. Norman, M.D., regarding his psychiatric evaluation and assessment of Plaintiff Cameron
Maddox. For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal, (doc. no. 131), and DIRECTS the CLERK to file Dr. Norman’s unredacted
report under seal.
Because Dr. Norman finds Plaintiff Maddox to be incompetent, Plaintiffs seek
permission to proceed with his claims through his mother, Martha Thompson, as next friend.
(Doc. no. 130.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 17(c), a next friend may proceed on behalf of

an incompetent person upon a showing of “some relationship or other evidence that
demonstrates [the proposed next friend] is truly dedicated to the interests” of the incompetent
person. Ford v. Haley, 195 F.3d 603, 624 (11th Cir. 1999). Based on Dr. Norman’s
determination Mr. Maddox is incompetent and Ms. Thompson’s relation to Mr. Maddox as
his mother, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion, (doc. no. 130), and DIRECTS the
CLERK to add Martha Thompson as next for Cameron Maddox and amend the caption to
state “Martha Thompson, as Next Friend for Cameron Maddox.”
Because Dr. Norman opines Mr. Maddox’s competence may be restored if he begins
taking higher doses of medication, Plaintiffs seek a stay, related to Mr. Maddox’s claims
only, of all deadlines for ninety days, to allow time for (1) re-examination of Mr. Maddox in
sixty days; and (2) thirty days thereafter to file a motion to remove Ms. Thompson as next
friend if competency is restored. (Doc. no. 129.) In addition, Plaintiffs seek an additional
thirty days to complete discovery after the stay is lifted. The “[C]ourt has broad inherent
power to stay discovery until preliminary issues can be settled which may be dispositive of
some important aspect of the case.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997).
Rather than imposing a stay that halts progress, the Court will instead extend the discovery
period as to all parties and claims for ninety days. The parties should be able to complete all
remaining discovery, except perhaps the deposition of Mr. Maddox,1 during this extension,
especially in light of Ms. Thompson’s willingness to serve as next friend. Plaintiffs may seek
to remove Ms. Thompson as next friend in the event Mr. Maddox’s competency is restored.

Notably, Federal Rule of Evidence 601 presumes competency to be a witness, and the
advisory Committee Notes state “No mental or moral qualifications for testifying as a witness
2
1

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Discovery and
Motions Deadlines and modifies the schedule as follows:
CLOSE OF DISCOVERY

October 23, 2019

JOINT STATUS REPORT

October 23, 2019

LAST DAY FOR FILING CIVIL MOTIONS
INCLUDING DAUBERT MOTIONS, but
EXCLUDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE

November 22, 2019

All provisions of the prior Scheduling Orders, (doc. nos. 84, 115, 124), not revised
herein shall remain in full force and effect. The Court expects the parties to complete
discovery during this final extension.

Any further extension requests will have to be

addressed to the presiding District Judge and supported by specific, compelling reasons why
discovery could not be completed within the extended discovery period.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2019, at Augusta, Georgia.

are specified.”
3