Meyer v. Wexford Health Sources et al

Filing 93

ORDER GRANTING 85 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 4/20/2018. (jkb2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PATRICK MEYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-00173-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 85) and the
parties’ joint oral motion for continuance of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. On
April 19, 2018 an in person hearing on the motion to compel was held before the Court. Bridgette
Fu appeared for Plaintiff. Abbey Fritz appeared for Defendant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) limits discovery to non-privileged matters relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The Supreme Court has
cautioned that the requirement of Rule 26(b)(1) that the material sought in discovery be “relevant”
should be firmly applied, and the district courts should not neglect their power to restrict discovery
where necessary. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); see also Balderston v. Fairbanks
Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Industries, 328 F.3d 309, 320 (7th Cir. 2003). However, for discovery
purposes, relevancy is construed broadly to encompass matters that bear on, or reasonably could
lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue in the case. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill. v.
Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-2288-SLD-JEH, 2016 WL 4132182, *2 (C.D. Ill.,
Aug. 3, 2016); see also Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).
Page 1 of 3

Based on the information presented during the HEARING, the Court makes the following
findings and enters the following Order regarding the 30(b)(6) notice:
1.

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 are proper topics for a 30(b)(6) deposition but shall be

limited to testimony regarding the medical treatment related to or resulting from Plaintiff’s
blackouts and related falls;
2.

Paragraphs 3, 10 and 14 were withdrawn by Plaintiff;

3.

Paragraph 5 is a proper topic as modified below:
The information that forms the basis for any decision to transfer, or not transfer,
Patrick Meyer for medical care and treatment to the Carle Clinic in Champaign, IL
at any time during the period April 1, 2015 through January 1, 2016;

4.

Paragraph 6 is a proper topic as modified below:
Whether Wexford employees at Robinson Correctional Center received a copy of
Patrick Meyer’s discharge paperwork from Carle Clinic after his fall on April 1,
2015, when the neurological follow-up was ordered, and identification of
procedures for follow-up care recommended by Carle Clinic;

5.

Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 are proper topics for a 30(b)(6) deposition;

6.

Paragraph 11 is a proper topic as modified below:
Any information regarding: (a) the corporate structure of Wexford; and (b)
Wexford’s utilization management process;

7.

The parties agree the topic in paragraph12 is not at issue;

8.

Paragraph 13 is a proper topic, but is limited in time to the period of April 1, 2015

through January 1, 2016;
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ oral motion for continuance of the discovery
and dispositive motion deadlines is GRANTED. The Discovery Scheduled is AMENDED as
follows: Discovery to be completed by June 4, 2018; Dispositive motions due by June 22, 2018.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 20, 2018

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3