Coates v. Jurado et al
Filing
136
ORDER GRANTING 135 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification. (See Order) Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (Williams, Marlena)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMANUEL COATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 12-15529
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
JEMER JURADO, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION [135]
AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE
PLAINTIFF WITH NEW DISCOVERY AUTHORIZATION FORMS
Plaintiff Emanuel Coates (“Coates”), a pro se prisoner, alleges that
Defendants Jemer Jurado, N.P. (“Jurado”), and Corizon Health, Inc.
(collectively “Defendants”) were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment by failing to provide him
with a replacement hearing aid. [52]. On January 12, 2015, the Honorable
Laurie J. Michelson referred this case to the undersigned to resolve all
pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). [130]. On
February 12, 2015, the Court entered an Opinion and Order requiring,
among other things, that:
On or before MARCH 6, 2015, Coates must provide
substantive responses to Defendants’ discovery requests
seeking the identification of his medical providers and
employers while on parole, details of how he lost his hearing
aid, and the steps he took to get his hearing aid replaced.
[133, Pg ID 2014-15]. On February 26, 2015, Coates filed a motion
seeking clarification regarding the Opinion and Order, which is now before
the Court. [135].
Coates says Defendants provided him with a “Minute Men Services,
Inc., Authorization for release of the information” relating to his medical
providers and employers while on parole. [Id., Pg ID 2041]. The form asks
Coates to “authorize any doctor, nurse, hospital, current or past employer
to release[] any and all medical records…[for the dates] May 1, 2011 to
February 27, 2012.” [See id., Pg ID 2046]. Furthermore, the form provides
that:
This information may include alcohol and drug abuse records
protected under the regulations in code 42 or federal
regulations, part 2, in any, psychological services records, in
any, and social work records, if any, including communications
made by me to a social worker or psychologist….
[Id.]. Coates objects to this sentence, arguing that it “exposes his mental
health records to [Defendants’] discovery request,” which the Court
previously determined were not discoverable. [Id., Pg ID 2042]. Coates is
correct that the Court previously found that his mental health records are
not discoverable by Defendants, [see 111, Pg ID 1476], and the Court’s
February 12 Opinion and Order was not intended to require otherwise.
2
To protect Coates’s mental health records from discovery, the Court
orders that Defendants must provide Coates with new Minute Men
authorization forms that specifically exclude mental health records and that
do not contain the sentence Coates objects to by March 6, 2015. Coates
must sign and return the updated authorization forms to Defendants on or
before March 13, 2015.
The Court’s Opinion and Order [133] remains effective. For
clarification, Coates must respond to Defendants’ discovery requests and
provide the following information: (1) a complete and detailed explanation
of how he lost his hearing aid while on parole and the steps he took to get
his hearing aid replaced; (2) the identification of all of his employers while
on parole; and (3) excluding any providers he saw solely1 for mental health
reasons, the identification of all of his medical providers while on parole.
Because the amount of time that passed while Coates sought clarification
would make it difficult to comply by March 6, the Court extends the
deadline one week; Coates must provide the above-mentioned substantive
responses on or before MARCH 13, 2015.
1
If Coates saw any medical providers for both mental health and other
medical reasons, he must provide Defendants with their identity. However,
Defendants cannot seek any information regarding Coates’s
3
For the foregoing reasons, Coates’s motion for clarification [135] is
GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: February 27, 2015
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court,
the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’
obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 27, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?