GLADU v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS et al

Filing 352

ORDER overruling 316 Objection to Magistrate Judge's Recommended Order on Motions for Sanctions; overruling 327 Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order on Plaintiff's Motions to Amend Scheduling Order and Motion to Extend Time; and, overruling 349 Objection to Request for Court to Take Judicial Notice. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NICHOLAS A. GLADU,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

2:15-cv-00384-JAW

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDERS
The Court rejects the Plaintiff’s objections to three of the Magistrate Judge’s
non-dispositive orders on the grounds that the orders are neither clearly erroneous
nor contrary to law.1
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2015, Nicholas A. Gladu filed a complaint with this Court

against Correct Care Solutions and a number of individual defendants, alleging that
while confined in the Maine State Prison and Maine Correctional Center, he did not
receive proper medical treatment for bilateral hip pain and that the Defendants

Mr. Gladu has three interlocutory appeals pending with the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
See Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 242) (USCA Case Number 17-1008); Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 317)
(USCA Case Number 17-1231); Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 345) (USCA Case Number 17-1341).
“[A]s a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of authority to proceed with
respect to any matter touching upon, or involved in, the appeal.” United States v. Brooks, 145 F.3d
446, 455 (1st Cir. 1998). This Court has previously read the phrase “touching upon, or involved in, the
appeal” to restrict only trial court proceedings that impinge directly upon the questions presented in
the interlocutory appeal. See Parm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n v. Me. AG, 332 F. Supp. 2d 258, 260 (D. Me.
2004). The instant Order rules on three of Mr. Gladu’s objections that do not impinge directly upon
the issues currently pending in Mr. Gladu’s interlocutory appeals. Therefore, the Court concludes that
it retains jurisdiction over Mr. Gladu’s objections.
1

retaliated against him for filing grievances within the prison system. Verified Compl.
for Damages and Inj. Relief (ECF No. 1). On December 21, 2015, Correct Care
Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O., and Wendy Riebe (the
Correct Care Defendants) answered the Complaint, denying its essential allegations
and raising affirmative defenses. Answer, Defenses and Affirmative Defenses of Defs.
Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, M.D. and Wendy
Riebe, HSA to Pl.’s Verified Compl. (ECF No. 61).
Before the Court are three objections that Mr. Gladu has made to orders of the
Magistrate Judge: (1) to the Magistrate Judge’s Sanctions Order, Pl.’s Obj. to
Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Order on Mots. for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule
72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. (ECF No. 316) (Sanctions Obj.); (2) to the Magistrate Judge’s
Scheduling Order and motion to extend time, Pl.’s Obj. to the Magistrate Judge’s
Order on Pl.’s Mots. to Amend Scheduling Order and Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No.
327) (Sch. Obj.); and (3) to a request for the Court to take judicial notice. Pl.’s Opp’n
to Defs.’ Req. for the Ct. to Take Judicial Notice (ECF No. 349) (Judicial Notice Obj.).
On March 20, 2017, the Correct Care Defendants responded to Mr. Gladu’s
objection to the Sanctions Order. Defs.’ Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D.,
George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Resp. to Pl.’s Obj. to Magistrate Judge’s
Order on Mot. for Sanctions (ECF No. 329) (Correct Care’s Sanctions Resp.). On
March 27, 2017, the Correct Care Defendants responded to Mr. Gladu’s objection to
the Scheduling Order. Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George
Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Resp. to Pl.’s Obj. to Magistrate Judge’s Order on

2

Mots. to Amend Scheduling Order and Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 338) (Correct
Care’s Scheduling Order Resp.). The time period for the Correct Care Defendants to
respond to the motion on judicial notice has not expired, and they have not yet
responded; nevertheless, as the Court’s ruling on Mr. Gladu’s motion is especially
clear, the Court will not await a responsive pleading from the Correct Care
Defendants before deciding Mr. Gladu’s judicial notice motion.
II.

THE SANCTIONS ORDER ON SPOLIATION
Turning first to the Magistrate Judge’s Sanctions Order, Mr. Gladu filed a

motion for sanctions against the Correct Care Defendants on January 11, 2017. Pl.’s
Mot. for the Ct. to Impose Sanctions (ECF No. 281). In his motion, Mr. Gladu alleged
that the Correct Care Defendants had “intentionally withheld, hid, or altered medical
information” in his medical record on matters relevant to his lawsuit. Id. at 1. On
February 1, 2017, the Correct Care Defendants responded by arguing that Mr. Gladu
had not properly alleged a spoliation issue because there was no allegation that the
Correct Care Defendants improperly altered or damaged evidence so as to cause Mr.
Gladu unfair prejudice. Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George
Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. for the Imposition of Sanctions
at 2 (ECF No. 293). On February 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied Mr. Gladu’s
motion for sanctions, concluding that Mr. Gladu had failed to allege that his medical
records had been “spoiled” within the legal meaning of the term. Order on Mot. for
Sanctions at 1 (ECF No. 311) (Sanctions Order). In Mr. Gladu’s objection, he repeats

3

his contention that the Correct Care Defendants destroyed, altered, and hid vital
medical records. Sanctions Obj. at 1.
Mr. Gladu’s objection betrays a misunderstanding of the legal concept of
spoliation. The Magistrate Judge properly quoted the First Circuit Court of Appeals’
teaching on spoliation: “[T]he party urging that spoliation has occurred must show
that there is evidence that has been spoiled (i.e., destroyed or not preserved).”
Sanctions Order at 1 (quoting Gomez v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 670 F.3d 395,
399 (1st Cir. 2012)). Although Mr. Gladu maintains that he gave a history to Correct
Care’s medical personnel that does not appear in the medical records, the medical
record—accurate or not—exists, and Mr. Gladu would be free at trial to question
witnesses about the completeness and accuracy of the extant record.
This contrasts with the situation where the Correct Care Defendants, placed
on notice of Mr. Gladu’s claim, destroyed the medical record. See Barry v. Corizon,
Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00527-JDL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99211, at *25–26, n.7 (D. Me. Jul.
29, 2016) (quoting Testa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 173, 177 (1st Cir. 1998)
(“[A] party who destroys a document (or permits it to be destroyed) when facing
litigation, knowing the document’s relevancy to issues in the case, may well do so out
of a sense that the document’s contents hurt his position”)). There is no evidence in
this case that the Correct Care Defendants ever did such a thing, and therefore Mr.
Gladu is not entitled to sanctions against them for destroying or spoiling evidence
that has not been destroyed or spoiled.

4

III.

THE ORDER ON THE SCHEDULING ORDER
Turning next to the Scheduling Order, the Magistrate Judge issued a

scheduling order on January 27, 2016.

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 73).

The

Scheduling Order set April 11, 2016, as the deadline for amending the pleadings, for
the joinder of parties, and for the Plaintiff to designate experts. Id. at 1–2. The
Magistrate Judge amended the Order on February 22, 2016, to clarify a trial ready
date of October 31, 2016, not November 7, 2016. Notice (ECF No. 88).
On April 11, 2016, Mr. Gladu moved to amend the Scheduling Order to extend
the deadline for joinder of parties and to designate experts. Pl.’s Mot. to Amend
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 117). In the motion, Mr. Gladu states that his access to
the law library has impeded his ability to present a timely and effective case, and he
requests “additional time to get caught up with his legal work.” Id. He did not
request a specific amount of time. Id. On May 3, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued
an order in which he granted Mr. Gladu’s motion and extended his deadlines to
amend his pleadings, to join parties, and to designate experts to May 20, 2016. Order
on Mots. at 1–2 (ECF No. 124).

Likewise, the Magistrate Judge extended the

Defendants’ expert witness deadline to June 24, 2016. Id. at 2. On December 4, 2016,
the Magistrate Judge further amended the Scheduling Order to allow the parties to
file dispositive motions thirty days after the Court ruled on a motion to amend the
complaint, which was pending at the time. Order (ECF No. 234).
On November 21, 2016, Mr. Gladu again moved to amend the Scheduling
Order. Pl.’s Mot. for the Court to Amend the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 227). He

5

asked for a stay of proceedings for sixty days to resolve outstanding discovery issues.
Id. at 1. On December 6, 2016, the Correct Care Defendants objected to Mr. Gladu’s
motion to amend the Scheduling Order and request for a stay. Defs. Correct Care
Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Obj. to
Pl.’s Mot. to Amend the Scheduling Order and Req. for a Stay of the Proceedings (ECF
No. 237). On February 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge rejected Mr. Gladu’s motion
to amend the Scheduling Order and request for stay, noting that the case had been
pending since September 2015, that the Defendants would be prejudiced by a stay,
that the Defendants are entitled to a resolution of the matter without an
unreasonable delay, and that an extended stay would be contrary to the interests of
judicial economy. Order on Mots. to Stay at 2 (ECF No. 310) (Stay Order).

Mr.

Gladu objects to the Magistrate Judge’s February 24, 2017 Order on the ground that
he was experiencing medical problems and had fallen behind in his legal work. Sch.
Obj. at 1.
The Magistrate Judge’s February 24, 2017 Order is on a non-dispositive
matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Accordingly, the standard for this Court’s review of
this Order from the magistrate judge is whether the Order is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Although Mr. Gladu
disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Order, he offers no grounds for the Court to
conclude that the Magistrate Judge made clearly erroneous findings or committed an
error of law in his February 24, 2017 Order.

6

IV.

THE JUDICIAL NOTICE OBJECTION
Finally, turning to Mr. Gladu’s judicial notice objection, this dispute also

harkens back to Mr. Gladu’s efforts to amend the Scheduling Order. In addition to
his November 21, 2016 motion to amend the Scheduling Order, Mr. Gladu filed
another motion to amend the Scheduling Order, this time on January 11, 2017. Pl.’s
Mot. for the Ct. to Reset the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 282). On February 1, 2017,
the Correct Care Defendants objected to Mr. Gladu’s January 11, 2017 motion. Defs.
Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy
Riebe’s Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Reset the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 292). On February
28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued another order, granting in part and denying in
part Mr. Gladu’s motion. Order on Mots. to Amend Scheduling Order and Mot. to
Extend Time (ECF No. 314).
On March 13, 2017, Mr. Gladu objected to the February 28, 2017 Order. Pl.’s
Obj. to the Magistrate Judge’s Order on Pl.’s Mots. to Amend Scheduling Order and
Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 327). On March 27, 2017, the Correct Care Defendants
filed a response to Mr. Gladu’s objection.

Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert

Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe’s Resp. to Pl.’s Obj. to
Magistrate Judge’s Order on Mots. to Amend Scheduling Order and Mot. to Extend
Time (ECF No. 338). In response to Mr. Gladu’s assertion that he had been unable
to proceed with his claims because he has been placed in the segregation unit, the
Correct Care Defendants urged the Court to take “judicial notice” of the numerous
filings Mr. Gladu has made in this case during his period of segregation. Id. at 3, n.1.

7

Mr. Gladu believes that the Court should not take judicial notice of the filings in this
case, arguing that they do not meet the standards for judicial notice. Judicial Notice
Obj. at 1–2.
Mr. Gladu is simply incorrect as a matter of law that the Court may not take
judicial notice of the filings in the same case before the Court. See FED. R. EVID.
201(b). A court “is entitled to take judicial notice of all related proceedings and
records in cases before the same court.” Doustout v. G.D. Searle & Co., 684 F. Supp.
16, 17 n.1 (D. Me. 1988); E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Cullen, 791 F.2d 5, 7
(1st Cir. 1986); Hinton v. Outboard Marine Corp., No. 1:09-cv-00554-JAW, 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 6691, at *4–5 (D. Me. Jan. 20, 2012).
V.

CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommended Order on Motions for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ.
P. (ECF No. 316), Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order on Plaintiff’s
Motions to Amend Scheduling Order and Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 327), and
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Request for the Court to Take Judicial Notice
(ECF No. 349).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of April, 2017

8