Cyriak v. Kidd et al

Filing 38

ORDER that defendant file an answer to the complaint and comply with the discovery requirements set forth in 17 Order, dated 4/8/14. FURTHER ORDER denying 37 Motion to subpoena medical records. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 5/12/15. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
ANTHONY CYRIAK

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-3130
SEC. P.

VERSUS

*

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS

KEVIN KIDD, ET AL.

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a “Motion to Request Subpoena Duces Tecum” [doc. # 37] filed by
pro se plaintiff Anthony Cyriak.1 By this motion, plaintiff seeks to have the court issue a
subpoena duces tecum to LSU Health Sciences Center to provide plaintiff with a copy of his
medical records from May 2, 2013, “until the diagnosis was completed.”
It remains unclear, however, whether plaintiff has attempted to obtain his records from
the facility by direct request. Although the plaintiff has no constitutional right to free copies of
his medical records, he is entitled, by law, to a copy of his own medical records without resort to
a court order – provided he furnishes a signed authorization and reasonable copying charges to
the medical provider. See La. R.S. § 40:1299.96. Plaintiff is required to exhaust these efforts on
his own behalf before resorting to compulsory judicial process, i.e. a subpoena.
Moreover, the discovery that plaintiff is due from defendant may include some of the
medical records sought by plaintiff. The court previously ordered that
1

As this matter is not excepted within 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive of any
claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
order is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this
court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a) and L.R.
74.1(W).

[w]ithin twenty-one (21) days of Defendants’ first appearance
(filing of an answer or motion), or within thirty (30) days after
service of the summons and complaint if Defendant(s) have made
no appearance, Defendants or their counsel shall provide to
plaintiff all medical records, warden’s unusual occurrence
reports, and all other documents pertinent to the issues in this
case, that are in their possession. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1).
Defendants or their counsel shall contemporaneously file a
copy of these documents under seal with the court, together
with a Notice of Compliance attesting to the fact that the
requirements of this Order have been met.
(April 8, 2014, Suppl. Mem. Order [doc. # 17]).
However, the court granted defendants an extension of time until June 9, 2014, to file responsive
pleadings. (May 29, 2014, Order [doc. # 21]). In addition, other deadlines were to be reset after
all parties had been served. Id.
Nevertheless, in lieu of filing an answer, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. See doc. # 22. In due course, the Court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiff’s claims against Kevin Kidd, but preserving his claims against the sole, remaining
defendant, Eric Scriber. See March 19, 2015, Judgment [doc. # 29].
Since that time, however, Scriber has not answered the complaint, nor has he filed into
the record a copy of all medical records, warden’s unusual occurrence reports, and all other
documents pertinent to the issues in this case (or presumably, provided plaintiff with a copy of
same).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that within the next 14 days from the date of this order, defendant
shall file an answer to the complaint and comply with the discovery requirements set forth in the
court’s April 8, 2014, Order [doc. # 17].

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to subpoena medical records [doc. #
37] is DENIED, at this time.
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 12th day of May 2015.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3