Varnadore v. Merritt

Filing 26

ORDER OVERRULING Defendant's 18 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's March 8, 2017 Order, dkt. no. 13. The interests of justice demand that the limited discovery ordered by the Magistrate Judge, dkt. nos. 13, 14, be permitted to go forward. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 4/19/2017. (csr)

3n

llniteb States! MfStxitt Court

jfortlie ^outliem ©isitntt of C>eor5ta
Pmitftlotclt ISibtoioti
♦

LISA VERONICA VARNADORE,
individually and as

*

Administratrix of the Estate of
Decedent JOSHUA MARSHALL FOSKEY

*

*

*

or as next friend of JENAA

*

GRAYCE FOSKEY,

*

CV 217-13

*

Plaintiff,

*
♦

V.
*

BRANDON MERRITT, individually.

*
*
*

Defendant.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Defendant's Objections,
dkt. no. 18, to the Magistrate Judge's Order, dkt. no. 13.

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record,
the undersigned overrules Defendant's objections.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff s original complaint was filed with the Court on
November 10, 2015.

Varnadore v. Merritt, No. 2:15cvl60 (S.D.

Ga. Nov. 10, 2015), Dkt. No. 1.

Though the discovery period

was set to end on July 20, 2016, the parties had agreed to take
both Plaintiff and Defendant's depositions on July 22, 2016,

just outside of the discovery period.

See Dkt. No. 18 at 2.

On

July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Discovery,
alleging that she could not attend her deposition due to
undisclosed medical reasons.

No. 2:15cvl60,

Dkt. No. 27.

The

Court granted the motion in part, providing fourteen (14)
additional days to complete party depositions but ordering,
Plaintiff to submit to the Court under seal all medical records

from her physician documenting her request.
In the meantime.

Id.,

Dkt. No.

Id., Dkt. No. 29.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

30.

On July 28,

rather than respond to the

Court's order or Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss.

Id.,

Dkt. No.

33.

On

August 9, the Court issued an Order permitting the voluntary
dismissal but placing conditions on Plaintiff's ability to

refile the action, i.e., to pay all Courts costs before refiling

and, within ten (10) days of any attempt to refile, to show
cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to provide

medical records documenting an emergency condition requiring
cancellation of her July 2016 deposition.

Id., Dkt. No. 36.

DISCUSSION

I.

MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S

On January 31, 2017,
No.

1.

SHOW-CAUSE RULING

Plaintiff filed a new Complaint.

Dkt.

In compliance with the first condition of the Court's

show-cause order. Plaintiff filed a motion directing Defendant

to itemize costs.

Dkt. No. 2.

Because Defendant voluntarily

waived the condition that Plaintiff pay those costs, dkt. no. 7,

the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's motion as moot.

Additionally, in compliance with the second condition in
the Court's show-cause order.

Plaintiff filed with the Court an

explanation detailing her unsuccessful attempt to secure medical
records from her physician and requesting the Court's

intervention.

Dkt. No. 5-1.

As the Magistrate Judge noted in

the parties' March 8, 2017 telephone status conference.

Plaintiff s physician appears to have a misunderstanding of the
regulations governing the release of medical records to her

patients, e.g. Plaintiff.

Per her letter.

Plaintiff's physician

simply would not release Plaintiff s medical records without a
Court order directing her to do so.

See e.g.,

Dkt. No.

5-1 at 5

{stating that she would not ^^release [Plaintiff's] medical

record unless legally mandated").

The Magistrate Judge found

good cause for Plaintiff's failure to produce medical records
supporting her request for an emergency motion for extension of
discovery in the previous case.

The Court concurs with the

Magistrate Judge's ruling.
II.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY

After the parties' status conference on March 8, 2017, the

Magistrate Judge issued an Order permitting limited discovery in
the renewed action, that is, identification and deposition of

expert witnesses and depositions of witnesses taken not for

discovery but for use at trial.^

Dkt. No. 13 at 2.

Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's Order.

He asks

that the Court ^'issue an Order that this case is to begin where

the previous case left off, in that discovery be deemed closed,
except for permitting the deposition of Ms. Varnadore if
defendant chooses, that all discovery from the previous case be

applicable to this case, and Plaintiff be given twenty-one (21)
days to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment."
Dkt. No. 18 at 6.

As Defendant notes, however, the Court has

broad discretion to modify the timing and sequence of discovery

^^for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the
interests of justice."
Britton, 523 U.S. 574,

that.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d); Crawford-El v.
598

(1998).

The Court has done just

The Magistrate Judge's order narrowly tailors discovery

so as to not waste time on written discovery already conducted

and allow only expert reports and trial—witness depositions.
Indeed, the claims at stake in this litigation trump any concern
Defendant has that Plaintiff receive a ^Vindfall" from using
Defendant's summary judgment motion as a playbook for

relitigating her case in the renewed action.

See Dkt. No. 18 at

^ The parties agreed at the status conference that, given the written
discovery that was already conducted during the prior lawsuit between
the parties, no further written discovery is necessary.
In keeping
with that agreement, the Magistrate Judge's Order does not permit
written discovery.

3-5.

The interests of justice demand that the limited discovery

ordered by the Magistrate Judge, dkt. nos. 13, 14, be permitted
to go forward.
CONCLUSION

Defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's March 8,
2017 Order,

dkt.

no.

13, are OVERRULED.

SO ORDERED, this 19th day of April,

2017.

LISA GODBEY WOOCS
UNITED STATES

SOUTHERN

CHIEF JUDGE

DISTRICT

COURT

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA