Seals v. Scutt et al

Filing 56

ORDER granting 49 Motion to Compel - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NICHOLAS SEALS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-cv-15054
DISTRICT JUDGE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

DEBRA SCUTT, et al.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STEVENSON’S
MOTION TO COMPEL [49]

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Dr. Vernon Stevenson’s Motion to Compel
Responses to First Request for Production of Documents. (Docket no. 49.) Plaintiff Nicholas Seals
filed a response to Defendant Stevenson’s Motion, Defendant Stevenson replied to Plaintiff’s
response, and Plaintiff responded to Defendant Stevenson’s reply. (Docket nos. 52-54.) All pretrial
matters have been referred to the undersigned for consideration. (Docket no. 37.) The Court has
reviewed the pleadings and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The Court is now ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
I.

Background
Plaintiff Nicholas Seals filed this pro se prisoner civil rights action on December 21, 2010,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical
care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Docket no. 1.) Four months later, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) on the grounds
that he had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. (Docket no. 23.) The Court

granted Plaintiff’s motion on May 11, 2011, and dismissed the case without prejudice. (Docket no.
35.) On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his complaint. (Docket no. 36.)
Shortly thereafter, the Court reopened the case and entered an order referring all pretrial matters to
the undersigned. (Docket no. 37.) The undersigned granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend on May
20, 2013 (Docket no. 38) and Plaintiff filed his amended complaint with the Court on July 10, 2013
(Docket no. 42). Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Stevenson’s Motion to Compel
Responses to his First Request for Production of Documents.1 (Docket no. 49.)
II.

Governing Law
The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally quite

broad. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Parties may obtain discovery
on any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to any party’s claim or defense if it is reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant
evidence” is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence
to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. But the scope of discovery is not unlimited. “District courts have
discretion to limit the scope of discovery where the information sought is overly broad or would
prove unduly burdensome to produce.” Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d
288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007).

1

Also pending before the Court are Defendant Stevenson’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket no. 46) and Defendant Prison Health Services, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss this Entity from this Action (Docket no. 51) for which the undersigned has
issued a Report and Recommendation contemporaneously with this Opinion and Order.
-2-

Rules 33 and 34 allow a party to serve interrogatories and requests for production of
documents on an opposing party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, 34. A party receiving these types of discovery
requests has thirty days to respond with answers or objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A).
If the party receiving discovery requests under Rules 33 or 34 fails to respond properly, Rule 37
provides the party who sent the discovery the means to file a motion to compel. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(3)(B). If a court grants a Rule 37 motion to compel, or if discovery is received after a Rule
37 motion is filed, then the court must award reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees to the
successful party, unless the successful party did not confer in good faith before the motion, the
opposing party’s position was substantially justified, or other circumstances would make an award
unjust. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).
III.

Analysis
Defendant Stevenson served Plaintiff with his First Request for Production of Documents

on October 9, 2013. (See docket no. 49-1.) Plaintiff did not object or respond; therefore, on January
7, 2014, Defendant Stevenson filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s response. (Docket no.
49.) Defendant Stevenson primarily seeks Plaintiff’s medical records and argues that they are
essential to his defense. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff responded to the instant motion on February 12, 2014.
(Docket no. 52.) In his response, Plaintiff alleged that he had not received Defendant Stevenson’s
First Request for Production of Documents until receipt of the Motion to Compel. (Id. at 1.)
Plaintiff then asserted that he had since responded to Defendant Stevenson’s discovery request,
which rendered the Motion to Compel moot. (Id. at 2.) Defendant Stevenson replied to Plaintiff’s
response on March 3, 2014, and indicated that he still had not received Plaintiff’s responses to his
First Request for Production of Documents. (Docket no. 53 at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff responded to

-3-

Defendant Stevenson’s reply on April 10, 2014, and asserted that he responded to Defendant
Stevenson’s discovery request on February 3, 2013, and attached as evidence a Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) Disbursement Authorization (Expedited Legal Mail - Prisoner)
form, which is date stamped for February 5, 2014. (Docket no. 54.)
The Court grants Defendant Stevenson’s Motion to Compel. Plaintiff has put his medical
condition at issue in this case; his medical records are, therefore, relevant. The Court has reviewed
the discovery requests and concludes that it has not seen any reason why Plaintiff should not be able
to answer the requests or release his medical records. Despite stating that he has responded to
Defendant Stevenson’s First Request for Production of Documents, there is no indication that
Plaintiff has done so, as the MDOC form that Plaintiff submitted as evidence does not indicate
which documents, if any, were sent to Defendant Stevenson. Thus, the Court will order Plaintiff to
respond to Defendant Stevenson’s First Request for Production of Documents, without objection,
within forty-five (45) days of this Opinion and Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Stevenson’s Motion to Compel [49] is
GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide full and complete responses to Defendant Stevenson’s
First Request for Production of Documents, without objection, within forty-five (45) days of this
Opinion and Order.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days
from the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be
permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

-4-

Dated: June 30, 2014

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Nicholas Seals and Counsel of
Record on this date.
Dated: June 30, 2014

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

-5-