Spencer v. Rosso et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Compel, 41 Motion for Order to Compel Answer, 48 Motion for Judgment of Contempt, 59 Motion and Order to Produce Documents and 63 Motion for Judgment of Contempt of Court. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the defendants shall file a supplemental response to the plaintiff's interrogatories nos. 4 and 5, identifying by name of "the female E.M.T. that made sick-call rounds on Camp D Hawk 1-R o n 5/22/2014" and "the LSP doctor who was working in the emergency room at the R.E. Barrow Treatment Center on 5/22/2014." Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 12/14/2015. (LLH) Modified on 12/14/2015 to edit text(LLH).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EDMOND D. SPENCER (#253212)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
WILLIAM ROSSO, ET AL.

NO. 15-0078-JWD-RLB

ORDER
Before the Court are the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses (R. Doc. 40), Motion
for Order to Compel Answer (R. Doc. 41), Motion for Judgment of Contempt (R. Doc. 48),
Motion for Order to Produce Documents (R. Doc. 59), and Motion for Judgment of Contempt of
Court (R. Doc. 63). The plaintiff complains therein that the defendants have failed to adequately
respond to his written discovery and have failed to provide copies of updated medical records,
specifically regarding an M.R.I. test conducted on August 28, 2015, and a consultation with an
orthopedic specialist on October 5, 2015. The defendants have objected to the plaintiff’s
motions in certain respects. See R. Doc. 42.
The plaintiff’s motions shall be denied for the most part. Inasmuch as the defendants
have raised the defense of qualified immunity in their pending Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 9),
and inasmuch as the assertion of this defense normally warrants a discontinuation of discovery
until the Court has addressed the viability of the defense, see Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427,
1434 (5th Cir. 1995), the Court has entered an Order staying discovery in this proceeding. See R.
Doc. 53. Accordingly, the defendants need not provide further documentation in response to the
plaintiff’s written discovery and requests.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, although discovery has been stayed. limited discovery
may be allowed for the purpose of obtaining the identities of defendants named in the Complaint.
See, e.g., Cowart v. Dallas County Jail, 439 Fed. App. 332, 333 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Cowart was
likely entitled to conduct discovery to determine the identities of the unnamed defendants, as ...
readily available documentation would reveal the identities of some of the John Doe
defendants”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, with the exception noted below, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Responses (R. Doc. 40), Motion for Order to Compel Answer (R. Doc. 41), Motion for Judgment
of Contempt (R. Doc. 48), Motion for Order to Produce Documents (R. Doc. 59), and Motion for
Judgment of Contempt of Court (R. Doc. 63) are hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order,
the defendants shall file a supplemental response to the plaintiff’s interrogatories nos. 4 and 5,
identifying by name “the female E.M.T. that made sick-call rounds on Camp D Hawk 1-R on
May 22, 2014” and “the LSP doctor who was working in the emergency room at the R.E.
Barrow Treatment Center on May 22, 2014.”
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 14, 2015.

s

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE