Varnado v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 87

RULING denying 62 OBJECTION to Untimeliness and Validity of Responses to Request for Admissions and Interrogatories, MOTION to Strike, MOTION to Uphold FRCP Rules 33(b)(4) and 36(a)(3). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/11/2014. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HYMEL VARNADO (#333068)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

KENNETH NORRIS, ET AL

NUMBER 13-348-JWD-SCR

RULING ON OBJECTION TO UNTIMELINESS, VALIDITY OF RESPONSES,
MOTION TO STRIKE AND TO UPHOLD FRCP RULES 33 AND 36
Before the court is the plaintiff's Objection to Untimeliness
and

Validity

of

Responses

to

Request

For

Admissions

and

Interrogatories, Motion to Strike and Motion to Uphold FRCP Rules
33(b)(4) and 36(a)(3).

Record document number 62.

The motion is

not opposed.
First,

the

plaintiff

moved

to

compel

responses

to

interrogatories and requests for admissions by defendant Warden
Burl Cain.

A review of the record showed that the defendant

responded to the plaintiff’s discovery requests.1
Second, the plaintiff moved to compel verified responses to
discovery by defendants Kenneth Norris and James LeBlanc. A review
of the record showed that defendant Norris complied with this
court’s previous ruling2 and filed a verification of his discovery

1

Record document numbers 64 and 65.

2

Record document number 79.

responses.3
included

a

responses.4

A review of the record showed that defendant LeBlanc
verification

with

his

second

set

of

discovery

Therefore, insofar as the plaintiff sought to compel

verified responses to discovery by defendants Warden Cain, Norris
and LeBlanc, the motion is as moot.
Third, the plaintiff moved to determine the sufficiency of
defendant Stephanie Lamartiniere’s answers to request for admission
numbers 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9.5
In

request

for

admission

number

1

the

plaintiff

asked

defendant Lamartiniere to admit or deny whether LSP has had an
epidemic

of

offenders

filing

administrative

remedy

procedure

requests involving hernias which are not scheduled for surgery
because the surgery is considered elective.

Defendant denied the

request as written but also further responded that she has no
personal knowledge of the exact number of Administrative Remedy
Procedure requests involving hernias.

Defendant’s response to

request for admission number 1 is sufficient.
In

request

for

admission

number

4

the

plaintiff

asked

defendant Lamartiniere to admit or deny whether, as part of her
position as Medical Warden, she is personally responsible to ensure

3

Record document number 82.

4

Record document number 80.

5

Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Admissions Stephanie
Lamartiniere. Record document number 35. Defendant Lamartiniere
filed responses. Record document number 50.
2

offenders may request access to health care and that the response
to such requests shall be timely and efficient.

Defendant denied

the request for admission is as written.
In moving to compel a sufficient response to request for
admission

number

acknowledged

4,

the

plaintiff

having

an

overall

argued

that

knowledge

the

of

defendant

departmental

regulations and that her position as Medical Warden requires her to
review, interpret and implement policy.
since

Department

Regulation

B-06-001

Plaintiff argued that

contains

a

clause

which

identifies as an objective of the policy to ensure unimpeded access
to routine and emergency health care services in a timely and
efficient

manner,

defendant

Lamartiniere’s

response

is

unreasonable.
There

are

simply

no

inconsistencies

in

the

defendant’s

responses to request for admission numbers 2 and 3 and her response
to request number 4.

Lamartiniere’s response to request admission

number 4 is sufficient.
In

request

for

admission

number

7

the

plaintiff

asked

defendant Lamartiniere to admit or deny that the LSU Health Care
system does not know, and/or has not been specifically made aware
by the LSP or DPS&C, that Health Care Policy 26 creates two types
of elective surgery - medically necessary and cosmetic.

Defendant

denied the request for admission.
In moving to compel a sufficient response to request admission

3

number

7,

the

plaintiff

argued

that

the

defendant

denied

responsibility for informing the LSU Health Care System about the
two types of elective surgeries and therefore her response is
insufficient.
for

admission

Contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion, the request
did

not

ask

the

defendant

to

admit

or

deny

responsibility for informing LSU about the two types of surgery.
As such, Lamartiniere’s response to request for admission number 7
is sufficient.
In

request

for

admission

number

8

the

plaintiff

asked

defendant Lamartiniere the following:
In your position as Medical Warden responsible for
ensuring offenders have timely and efficient access to
health care for medically necessary hernia surgeries,
should LSU Health Care system not be made aware of the
two types of elective surgery so it may intelligently
schedule surgery based upon informed and full knowledge
of the offender’s actual medical needs?”
Defendant Lamartiniere denied the request as written.
In moving to compel a sufficient response to request for
admission number 8, the plaintiff argued that the defendant denied
responsibility for ensuring that offenders have timely access to
health care for medically necessary hernia surgery based upon
informed and full knowledge of the offender’s actual medical needs
even though she admitted in response to request for admission
numbers 2 and 3 that she is personally responsible for interpreting
and implementing all existing written policies.

Contrary to the

plaintiff’s assertion, this is not what the defendant was asked to

4

admit or deny.

Fairly read, the defendant was asked to admit or

deny that the LSU Health Care system should be made aware of the
two types of elective surgery.

As such, the defendant’s response

to request for admission number 8 is sufficient.
In

request

for

admission

number

9

the

plaintiff

asked

defendant Lamartiniere to admit or deny that she is personally
aware that LSP offenders who are suffering daily pain, physical
limitations and mental distress from unincarcerated (sic) hernias
will not have the surgery performed until and unless the hernia
becomes

incarcerated

threatening.
written.

or

Defendant

otherwise
denied

the

becomes
request

immediately
for

life-

admission

as

Defendant further explained that she has no personal

knowledge of the subjective levels of pain experienced by each
inmate who has been diagnosed with an unincarcerated (sic) hernia.
In moving to compel a sufficient response to request for
admission number 9, the plaintiff argued that the response is
evasive.

Plaintiff’s argument is not persuasive.

Lamartiniere’s

response to admission number 9 is sufficient.
Fourth,

the

plaintiff

moved

to

strike

answers

to

interrogatories and requests for admission filed by defendants
James LeBlanc and Kenneth Norris on the ground that they are not
signed by the defendants.6

6

Plaintiff referred to these as record document numbers 35,
36, 38 and 40.
However, these documents are the plaintiff’s
(continued...)
5

Review of the defendants’ answers to interrogatories showed
that

they

comply

Fed.R.Civ.P.7

with

the

requirements

of

Rule

33(b)(5),

Review of the defendants’ responses to the requests

for admission showed that they comply with the requirements of Rule
36(a)(3),

Fed.R.Civ.P.8

Plaintiff’s

motion

to

strike

the

defendants’ answers to interrogatories is denied.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's Objection to Untimeliness and
Validity

of

Responses

to

Request

For

Admissions

and

Interrogatories, Motion to Strike and Motion to Uphold FRCP Rules
33(b)(4) and 36(a)(3) is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 11, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

(...continued)
admissions and interrogatories to the defendants. Their responses
are at document numbers 52, 51, 80 and 48, respectively.
7

See record document numbers 80 and 82-1.

8

Record document numbers 52 and 51, respectively.
Rule
36(a)(3), provides in relevant part that a written answer or
objection addressed to the matter must be signed by the party or
its attorney. Moreover, the rule does not require that the answer
to a request for admission be sworn.

6