KELLY v. TALBIT, M.D. et al
ENTRY CONCERNING SELECTED MATTERS - Kelly's objection, dkt. 80 , is overruled and his Motion to Compel Discovery dkt. 85 , is denied. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/13/2017. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (MEJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
PAUL TALBIT, M.D., HOUMAN KIANI, )
M.D., BRYAN BULLER,
MIKE PERSON, DR. RAFIQ,
NURSE PRACTITIONER BRUBAKER,
Entry Concerning Selected Matters
Plaintiff Richard Kelly (“Kelly”), filed this civil rights action under 42 USC §1983
alleging that Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the Court is Kelly’s
objection to the Court’s appointment of a neutral expert and a Motion to Compel Discovery. For
the reasons explained below the objection is overruled and the Motion to Compel is denied.
Kelly objects to the Court’s appointment of a neutral expert under Federal Rule of
Evidence 706. Specifically, he objects to the appointment of a general practitioner instead of
neurology and orthopedic specialists to provide the Court with testimony regarding the
appropriateness of the medical care that is at issue in this case.
Kelly’s claims are that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Therefore, to prevail, he will have to show:
(1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition; and (2) the defendants knew about
his condition and the substantial risk of harm it posed, but disregarded that risk. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. County of Madison, Ill., 746
F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir. 2014). In other words, Mr. Kelly will be able to prove his claims if the
defendants’ decisions were “so far afield of accepted professional standards as to raise the
inference that [they were] not actually based on a medical judgment.” Norfleet v. Webster, 439
F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2006). Because, as the Court has already explained, the defendants are
general practitioners, a general practitioner is able to opine regarding the elements of Mr. Kelly’s
claims. Specifically, a general practitioner is properly situated to provide opinion testimony
which should shed light on whether the defendants’ action were “far afield of accepted
professional standards.” Kelly’s objection, dkt. , is therefore overruled.
II. Motion to Compel
Kelly has also filed a Motion to Compel Discovery in which he seeks an order directing
that the Defendants respond to certain interrogatories and provide a copy of “the prior answer
that was generated . . . in the case: Kelly v. Joe Thompson Mike Mitcheff.” He also asks for
permission to re-serve a subpoena to the New Castle Correctional Facility to allow him to obtain
emails and text messages generated by the defendants related to his medical care and the contact
information of the internet service provider that provided the cell phone service for the
The defendants have objected to the motion to compel arguing that the discovery
deadline passed on February 20, 2017, and that Kelly did not comply with the requirements of
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For these reasons alone, the motion to compel
can be denied. Further, the defendants point out that documents related to the medical review
panel identified above are not relevant to the claims in this case and Kelly has not argued that
they are relevant. Similarly, Kelly has failed to demonstrate that the Defendants’ cell phone
records would contain or lead to any evidence relevant to his claims. Finally, Kelly has been
provided with all of his medical records related to his claims of inadequate medical treatment in
this case. For all of these reasons, the Motion to Compel, dkt. , is denied.
For the reasons stated above, Kelly’s objection, dkt. , is overruled and his Motion to
Compel Discovery dkt. , is denied.
Electronic distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to:
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
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?