Vamplew v. Wayne State University Board of Governors et al

Filing 42

Order Denying Plaintiff's 39 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAD VAMPLEW,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-14561

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD
OF GOVERNORS, et al.,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 39)
I.
This is essentially a discrimination case. Plaintiff Brad Vamplew (Vamplew) is
suing defendants the Wayne State University Board of Governors (Wayne State) and
several faculty members of the Wayne State University College of Nursing. Vamplew
was removed from the nursing program at Wayne State after he engaged in an
allegedly “unsafe practice” in a clinical setting. The incident took place on April 5, 2012
and involved a patient at the Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan (RIM), which is part of
the Detroit Medical Center. Vamplew alleges that a RIM employee reported the unsafe
practice to an instructor at Wayne State’s Nursing program. Vamplew further alleges
that his removal was done without prior warnings and in violation of written policies.
Vamplew was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and given
accommodations during his time in the program. The case is in the discovery phase.
Non-party Detroit Medical Center (DMC) filed a motion to quash subpoenas,

seeking to quash three subpoenas. The first subpoena was issued on May 2, 2013 (the
May 2 subpoena). It asked for medical records of the patient involved in the unsafe
practice from March 12, 2013 to March 23, 2013. The second subpoena was issued on
May 9, 2013 (the May 9 subpoena). It asked for medical records from four patients for
dates in January and February of 2012. The third subpoena was issued on May 17,
2013 (the May 17 subpoena). It asked for documents outlined in 11 paragraph
requests. DMC argued that the subpoenas requested information that violated privacy
laws, was irrelevant or could be obtained from Wayne State. The Court granted the
motion.
Before the Court is Vamplew’s motion for reconsideration. Vamplew seeks
reconsideration on two items: (1) the May 9 subpoena and (2) paragraph 11 of the May
17 subpoena as it relates to the meaning of codes. DMC, at the Court’s request, filed a
response. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II.
E.D. Mich LR 7.1(h)(3) governs motions for reconsideration. It provides in
relevant part:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not
grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the
same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by implication.
The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the
defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
Restating arguments does not establish a defect or that the Court was misled. See
Intercontinental Electronics, S.p.A. v. Roosen, 210 F. App’x 491, **3 (6th Cir. 2006).

2

III.
As an initial matter, DMC has provided a “Summary of Codes” for the patient at
issue. Thus, this portion of Vamplew’s motion is MOOT.
Regarding, the May 9 subpoena seeking charting information for four patients,
the Court quashed the subpoena on the ground that “[b]ased on DMC’s representation,
there is no need to enforce the subpoena. The records sought simply do not contain
the information Vamplew had hoped to find in order to test the credibility of the
instructor.” Vamplew now says that DMC’s representation is factually incorrect. He
also says that he has some charting information from his instructor and needs the DMC
records to verify if the charting was timely.
As DMC notes, whether or not Vamplew’s alleged untimely charting was a basis
for his removal under the auspices of lack of “organization and prioritization” is not clear
as the instructor at issue has not yet been deposed. Until such time as an allegation of
untimely charting, which does not appear in the complaint, is at issue, Vamplew’s
request is premature at best. If untimely charting is in fact a basis for his removal, then
Vamplew may renew his request, keeping in mind to frame the request so as not to
intrude on the non-party patients’ privacy rights.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 9, 2013

3

12-14561 Brad Vamplew v.
Wayne State University Board of Governors
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, July 9, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

4