Miller v. Cain et al

Filing 73

RULING granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion to Compel Discovery- Post FRCP Rule 37(a)(1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 06/19/2014. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHON D. MILLER SR. (#427562)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

N. BURL CAIN, ET AL

NUMBER 12-730-JJB-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY - POST FRCP Rule 37(a)(1)
Before the court is the plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery
- Post FRCP Rule 37(a)(1).

Record document number 53.

The motion

is opposed.1
Background
On November 21, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel
Discovery.2
that

the

Defendants opposed the motion specifically arguing
plaintiff

Fed.R.Civ.P.3

failed

to

comply

with

Rule

37(a)(1),

In response, the plaintiff sent counsel for the

defendants a letter outlining the alleged insufficiencies in the
defendants’

discovery

responses.4

On

January

14,

2014,

the

defendants filed Supplemental and Amending Responses to Plaintiff’s
Discovery.5

Defendants attached more than 3,000 pages of the

1

Record document number 58.

2

Record document number 47.

3

Record document number 50.

4

Record document number 53-2, pp. 1-12.

5

Record document number 52.

plaintiff’s medical records.6

These medical records supplemented

the more than 1,000 pages of medical records previously produced,
and apparently some of the records were duplicates.
On February 28, 2014, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed
November 21, 2013, was granted in part and denied in part.7
Specifically, the defendants were ordered to produce the job
descriptions of defendants Warden Burl Cain, Warden Kenneth Norris,
Dr. Jonathan Roundtree, Dr. Jason Collins and Dr. Hal McMurdo, and
in all other respects the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
was denied.8
judge.

On

Plaintiff did not appeal the ruling to the district

March

14,

2014,

the

defendants

filed

a

Notice

of

Compliance.9
Motion to Compel
On January 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed another motion to
compel much of the same discovery at issue in the then-pending
November 21, 2013 motion.
Request for Production of Documents Filed August 12, 2013
Plaintiff moved to compel the discovery requests propounded on

6

Id.

7

Record document number 64.

8

Id.

9

Record document number 65.
2

August 8, 2013 and filed on August 12, 2013.10

A review of the

record showed that the court’s prior ruling issued November 28,
2014, addressed the discovery at issue in the current motion to
compel.
For the reasons set forth in the court’s ruling issued
February 28, 2014,11 the plaintiff’s motion to compel the production
of copies of Narrative Nurses Notes and Wound Management Forms from
August 2012 to the present, a copy of the Health Care Manual B-06001, and the curriculum vitae of defendants Warden Kenneth Norris
and non-defendant Stephanie Lamartiniere is denied. Insofar as the
plaintiff sought to compel the production of the narratives of the
defendants’ job duties, the motion is denied as moot.

Insofar as

the plaintiff sought to compel the production of signed civil
service

forms

Lamartiniere

of

and

the
EMT

defendants,

personnel

and

non-defendants

Stephanie

the

vitae

curriculum

of

unidentified EMT personnel, the motion is denied because the
plaintiff did not request production of these documents.12
Interrogatories Propounded August 2013
Plaintiff apparently propounded interrogatories on or about
August 12, 2013 but they were not filed in the record.

10

Record document number 27.

11

Record document number 64.

12

Record document number 27.
3

However, on

November

7,

2013,

interrogatories.13

the

defendants

file

objections

to

the

to

Plaintiff is now before the court seeking to

compel responses to the interrogatories.
In Interrogatory No. 1 the plaintiff asked the defendants to
identify by ARP14 number all complaints filed by offenders against
Dr. Jonathan Roundtree and/or the Louisiana State Penitentiary
(“LSP”)

medical

department

for

medical

negligence,

medical

malpractice, unethical medical conduct, or deliberate indifference
from January 2011 to the present.

Plaintiff also suggested how to

search the medical department’s databases to find the requested
information.
Defendants objected on grounds that the request is overly
broad and the information sought is irrelevant and not reasonably
calculated

to

lead

to

the

discovery

of

relevant,

material,

admissible evidence.
Plaintiff moved to compel on grounds that the evidence is
relevant and easily assembled if the defendants were to conduct a
search of multiple databases in the manner suggested by him.
Defendants objection is well-founded.

Production of ARPs

making complaints against Dr. Roundtree specifically, and the LSP
medical department generally, would no doubt include many of
complaints covering a wide range of grievances which have no

13

Record document number 44.

14

Administrative Remedy Procedure.
4

relevance to the plaintiff’s claims. Defendants would then have to
review the doctor’s or the medical department’s responses to the
ARPs, as well as the prison’s final response to them.

Sifting

through these ARPs to find any that are similar to the plaintiff’s
complaints would impose burdens and expenses that far outweigh the
likely benefit to the plaintiff, if any.

Such discovery, at best,

would only be marginally helpful to the plaintiff, assuming it
would be admissible in evidence at all. See Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii),
Fed.R.Civ.P.

Therefore,

the

plaintiff’s

motion

to

compel

a

response to Interrogatory Number 1 is denied.
In Interrogatory Number 2 the plaintiff asked the defendants
to identify all training received by defendants Dr. Roundtree, Dr.
Collins, and Warden Norris, and non-party Lamartiniere through the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections or LSP,
including instructions as to the proper application of pertinent
Department Health Care Regulations and Unit Specific Health Care
Directives and Health Care Policies and Procedures.
Defendants objected on grounds that the interrogatory is
overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to any discoverable
evidence, and requests information regarding a non-party.

In

addition the defendants objected on grounds that the interrogatory
seeks information related to the security of the institution, the
information may threaten the security of LSP and may undermine the
authority of officers in the prison.

5

Defendants arguments are not persuasive.

Plaintiff’s motion

to compel a response to Interrogatory Number 2 is granted.

Within

14 days from the date of this ruling, the defendants shall serve
and file a substantive response to Interrogatory Number 2.
In Interrogatory No. 3 the plaintiff asked the defendants to
identify all training received by LSP EMT staff members regarding
the application of pertinent Corrections Department Health Care
Regulations and Unit Specific Health Care Directives and Health
Care Policies and Procedures.
Defendants objected on grounds that the interrogatory is
overly

broad

and

not

reasonably

calculated

to

lead

to

any

discoverable evidence since it requests information regarding
individuals who are not parties.
objected

on

grounds

that

the

In addition, the defendants

interrogatory

seeks

information

related to the security of the institution, the information may
threaten the security of LSP and may undermine the authority of
officers in the prison.
Defendants argument regarding the production of information as
to EMTs who are not parties is persuasive; defendant’s argument
that

such

persuasive.

information

would

be

a

threat

to

security

is

not

However, since no remaining defendant is an EMT there

is no need for the defendants to answer this interrogatory.
Interrogatories Filed November 5, 2013
Plaintiff filed additional interrogatories on November 5,
6

201315 and the defendants filed responses on December 5, 2013.16
Plaintiff argued that responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3 and 4
are insufficient and moved to compel complete responses.
In Interrogatory Number 1, the plaintiff asked the defendants
to define the policy and procedure for obtaining needed surgery and
to identify who has the final authority to approve and authorize
needed surgery.
Defendants objected on the ground that the interrogatory
assumed facts not in evidence. Without waiving their objection the
defendants responded that a surgeon at a surgery clinic determines
whether a surgery is necessary.
if

a

surgery

is

deemed

Defendants further responded that

necessary

a

referral

is

made

to

an

appropriate facility and the surgery is scheduled.
Plaintiff moved to compel arguing that defendants did not
identify who at LSP is responsible for contacting the surgeon at
the surgery clinic, that they did not identify the protocol or
policy that must be followed to contact the surgeon at the surgery
clinic, and they failed to indicate what information must be
conveyed to the surgeon for the surgeon to make an informed
judgment as to whether surgery is medically necessary.
Defendants opposed the motion to compel arguing that their
response

to

Interrogatory

No.

1

15

Record document number 40.

16

Record document number 48.
7

is

sufficient

and

that

the

plaintiff now seeks to compel a response to an interrogatory that
was not propounded.
Defendants response to Interrogatory No. 1 is sufficient.
Plaintiff’s

motion

to

compel

a

more

complete

response

to

Interrogatory No. 1 is denied.
In Interrogatory No. 3, the defendants were asked to define
the specific procedure used for dressing changes to pressure ulcers
and documenting the dressing changes, including what should be
noted and how often the documentation is to be performed.
Defendants objected on grounds that the interrogatory is
vague,

ambiguous

and

overly

broad.

Without

waiving

their

objections the defendants referred the plaintiff to the medical
records and policies already produced.

In addition the defendants

responded that wound care is assessed on an individual basis,
orders

are

received

from

staff

physicians

conforming

to

the

standard of care, and the orders are carried out by staff nurses.
Defendants further responded that wounds are also assessed by
nurses as ordered, and any deterioration in condition is reported
to a physician at that time.

Defendants further responded that

wounds are examined by a physician weekly and documentation of the
wound care, including daily assessment and dressing changes by the
nursing staff and the weekly assessment by a physician, becomes a
part of the medical record.
Plaintiff moved to compel arguing that defendants did not

8

identify what specific procedure [protocol] is used for dressing
changes of pressure ulcers, exactly what type of assessment nurses
perform to determine whether or not deterioration of the wound
should be reported, and what physiological changes in pressure
ulcers constitute “deterioration of the wound.”
Defendants opposed the motion to compel arguing that their
response

to

Interrogatory

No.

3

is

sufficient

and

that

the

plaintiff now seeks to compel a response to an interrogatory that
was not propounded.
Defendants response to Interrogatory No. 3 is sufficient.
Plaintiff’s

motion

to

compel

a

more

complete

response

to

Interrogatory No. 3 is denied.
In Interrogatory No. 4 the defendants were asked how often the
bathing area on the ward is cleaned and by whom, what chemicals are
used to clean the bathing areas, and who is responsible for
ensuring that the bathing area are cleaned.
Defendants responded that trained orderlies use a 10% bleach
solution to clean the bathing areas daily.

Defendants further

responded that security personnel are responsible for monitoring
the cleaning of the areas.
Plaintiff moved to compel arguing that the defendants did not
indicate who mixes the cleaning solution, what safeguards are in
place to ensure that the cleaning solution mixture is consistent
and accurate, whether the orderlies are inmates, identify the

9

training provided orderlies, and the method used by security to
ensure that the cleaning solution is not stolen by the orderlies.
Defendants opposed the motion to compel arguing that their
response to Interrogatory No. 4 is sufficient and that

the

plaintiff now seeks to compel a response to an interrogatory that
was not propounded.
Defendants response to Interrogatory No. 4is sufficient.
Plaintiff’s

motion

to

compel

a

more

complete

response

to

Interrogatory No. 4 is denied.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery - Post
FRCP Rule 37(a)(1) is granted in part and denied in part.

Within

14 days from the date of this ruling, the defendants shall respond
to Interrogatory No. 2 propounded on or about August 12, 2013.

In

all other respects, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Post FRCP Rule 37(a)(1) is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 19, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10