Crussiah v. Inova Health System

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 10/3/2016. (c/m 10/3/16 rss) (rss, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
JOSEPH CRUSSIAH,
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.

Civil Action No. PX 14-4017
*

Inova Health System,
*
Defendant.
******
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff Joseph Crussiah (“Crussiah”) propounded on Defendant Inova
Health System (“Inova”) a “Production of Documents Request and an Interrogatories Request.”
The documents request essentially asks Inova to produce all documents in its possession related
to its interactions with Crussiah. ECF No. 45-1 at 2–12. The interrogatories request includes not
only the standard questions but thirty-three additional “interrogatories.” ECF No. 45-1 at 14–26.
Inova agreed to respond to these discovery requests within thirty-three (33) days. ECF No. 42-1
at 1. Crussiah propounded another set of interrogatories on Inova on September 12, 2016, but a
response to this second set of interrogatories is not due until October 17th.
On August 22, 2016, Crussiah filed a Motion to Compel, arguing that Inova failed to
respond to his discovery requests within the time allowed. ECF No. 42. In a September 15th
Order, the Court stated that it was unable to rule on Crussiah’s Motion to Compel without a brief
report from Inova regarding the status of discovery. ECF No. 44. Inova promptly responded with
a status report on September 21st explaining the progress the parties have made since Crussiah
initiated discovery in July 2016. ECF No. 45.

1

Inova’s September 21st status report confirms that Inova responded to Crussiah’s
discovery requests within the time allotted. Inova sent to Crussiah via mail a response to
Crussiah’s request for production of documents on August 9, 2016. See ECF No. 45-1. Inova
attached this response to its September 21st status report. ECF No. 45-1 at 28–35. Inova included
in its response “every non-privileged document in its possession that has anything to do with
Inova’s interactions with him.” ECF No. 45 at 1. The 400-page packet was mailed to the address
provided in Crussiah’s discovery request. But for reasons unknown, the production was returned
to Inova with the hand-written notation on the envelope: “Unwanted [-] Person not at address
[sic] 3300 Gallows Rd. Falls Church Va. 22042.” See ECF No. 45-1 at 45. This is the address of
Inova Fairfax Hospital. Nonetheless, Inova has certified that it mailed its response to the
appropriate address.
Regarding Crussiah’s interrogatories, Inova sent its response on August 9, 2016 via U.S.
mail to the address included in Crussiah’s discovery request. Inova attached its response to its
September 21st status report. ECF No. 45-1 at 36–43. Accordingly, Inova has timely and
appropriately responded to Crussiah’s discovery requests. The Court, therefore, denies
Crussiah’s Motion to Compel. A separate order will follow.

10/3/2016
Date

/S/
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

2