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)

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
[e-mail]
Jeb Adam Crandall
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL PC
[e-mail]
J. Richard Moore
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL
[e-mail]
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