Edwards v. Hynes et al

Filing 74

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/26/2017. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
CHARLES EDWARDS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MEDICAL DIRECTOR PAT CLARK,
)
Wheeler Correctional Facility; VIRGINIA
)
COTTLE, Dental Assistant, Wheeler
)
Correctional Facility; and DR. JASMINE
)
AHN, Dentist,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 316-019

ORDER
_________
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Defendants’ alleged failure to
produce documents in accordance with this Court’s July 17th Order. (Doc. no. 62.) In
particular, Plaintiff alleges the following deficiencies in Defendants’ disclosures:
1.

The profile history, activity log, and movement history attached to
Defendant Clark’s supplemental discovery responses are not genuine.

2.

The dental log attached to Defendant Ahn’s supplemental discovery
responses is manufactured.

3.

The dental log attached to Defendant Ahn’s supplemental discovery
responses improperly deleted information regarding other patients
listed on the log.

(Id.) Plaintiff seeks the same sanctions for these alleged deficiencies as described in his
motion to compel, that is, a payment of $600.00 to the Open Door Community in Baltimore,
Maryland to aid the sick and homeless. (Id.; doc. no. 53, p. 13.)

Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions. First, there is nothing to suggest the profile
history, activity log, movement history, or dental log are manufactured or false. Defense
counsel has certified Defendants’ responses fully comply with the Court’s July 17th Order.
(Doc. nos. 61, 63.) Moreover, defense counsel avers the documents attached to Defendant
Clark’s supplemental disclosures are genuine, the denture waiting list is a handwritten log as
produced, and Defendants do not recognize the supposed “genuine” dental log from 2007
attached to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. no. 63, p. 5.) “The Court is generally entitled to rely on
such representations by counsel [in discovery responses] absent some reasonable articulable
suspicion the representation is false . . . .” Hunter v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. CV 314-035,
2016 WL 943752, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 5, 2016). Plaintiff fails to provide any concrete
evidence to raise such a reasonable articulable suspicion here.
Second, the redaction of the names of other inmates on the dental request log was
proper. Indeed, Defendants disclosure of other inmates’ health information without the
inmates’ authorization could potentially expose them to liability under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act.

See 45 C.F.R. § 164.508 (“Except as otherwise

permitted or required by this subchapter, a covered entity may not use or disclose protected
health information without an authorization that is valid under this section.”).

Thus,

Defendant Ahn properly redacted the names and resident numbers of the other inmates on the
dental request log.

2

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. no. 62.)
SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.

3