MANNS v. LECLERC, M.D. et al

Filing 87

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Pltf's 68 Motion to Compel (see Order for details) c/m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/7/2013. (SWM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION GARY E. MANNS, Plaintiff, vs. JACQUE LECLERC, M.D., KIM GRAY, LISA WOLFE, ASHLEY WAGGLER, AMY WRIGHT, DR. MITCHEFF, Defendants. ) ) ) ) NO. 1:11-cv-01550-TWP-MJD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents. [Dkt. 68.] The Court reviewed the submissions of the parties and heard oral argument on January 11, 2013. At the conclusion of the January 11, 2013 hearing, the Court instructed Defendants to conduct a search for the potentially relevant documents sought by Plaintiff and to advise the Court of the results of that search. [Dkt. 80 at 1-2.] On February 1, 2013, Defendants timely provided the information requested by the Court. [Dkt. 83.] In that submission, Defendants represented that six non-privileged and specifically responsive electronic messages relating to Plaintiff had been identified as a result of the search performed, and that those messages had been produced to Plaintiff. [Id. at 2.] Defendants further advised that eight additional privileged and specifically responsive electronic messages relating to Plaintiff had been identified as a result if the search performed, and that a privilege log identifying those messages had also been provided to Plaintiff. [Id.] Defendants identified an additional 427 electronic messages that would be potentially responsive to Plaintiff's request to production, but explained that those messages either contain no relevant information or that any potentially relevant information contained therein is cumulative of the information contained in Plaintiff's medical records, all of which have been produced to Plaintiff. [Id. at 3-4.] The Court agrees. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART with regard to Defendants' production of the six responsive electronic messages and with regard to the production by Defendants of a log of the eight additional privileged but otherwise potentially responsive messages. Plaintiff's motion to compel, to the extent it seek the production of any other documents by Defendants is DENIED on the grounds that such information is not relevant to a claim or defense in this matter, is cumulative of other information already produced to Plaintiff and because the burden or expense of producing the additional documents outweighs their likely benefit in light of the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the importance (or more specifically the lack of importance) of the discovery in resolving the issues in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c). So Ordered. Dated: 02/07/2013 Distribution: James F. Bleeke BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL PC Jeb Adam Crandall BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL PC J. Richard Moore BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL GARY E. MANNS 922454 INDIANA STATE PRISON INDIANA STATE PRISON Inmate Mail/Parcels One Park Row MICHIGAN CITY, IN 46360 Mark J. Dinsmore United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?