Reeser v. Henry Ford Hospital

Filing 102

ORDER granting in part and denying in part without prejudice defendant's Sealed Motion to strike plaintiff's claim for emotional distress damages or for alternative relief 84 and denying as moot plaintiff's Motion to Quash subpoenas 85 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NATALIE REESER,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 14-CV-11916
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant.
/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANT’S SEALED MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S
CLAIM FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES OR FOR
ALTERNATIVE RELIEF (Doc. 84) AND DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS (Doc. 85)
Now before the court is defendant’s sealed motion to strike plaintiff’s claim for
emotional distress damages for her failure to cooperate in discovery, or for alternative
relief, and plaintiff Natalie Reeser’s emergency motion to quash subpoenas defendant
Henry Ford Health System served on Sprint and AT&T custodians of records. Oral
argument was heard on May 9, 2016.

For the reasons stated on the record, the court

determines that plaintiff has abused the discovery process both in her failure to timely
identify her therapist Kriss Goodroe, and in her failure to identify the place where she was
hospitalized for psychiatric reasons in 2001. There is little doubt that plaintiff has been
intentionally evading discovery relating to both aspect of her prior treatment. The idea that
plaintiff could not identify the place where she was hospitalized is preposterous. Although
plaintiff may not have remembered the place at the time she completed the intake form
when treating with Goodroe, certainly plaintiff could have gained the information needed
-1-

to respond to defendant’s discovery requests by discussing the matter with family members
or the person(s) who took her to the hospital. Discovery is intended to be a collaborative
endeavor and plaintiff cannot avoid her obligations by citing to an allegedly faulty memory.
As a result of plaintiff’s obstructionist conduct, the court previously ruled that Goodroe is
barred from testifying.
For the reasons stated on the record, the court GRANTS IN PART defendant’s
motion to strike emotional distress damages or for alternative relief (Doc. 84) in that plaintiff
is ORDERED to complete authorizations for defendant to obtain hospitalization records.
The court DENIES without prejudice defendant’s motion to bar plaintiff from seeking
emotional distress damages (Doc. 84) but reserves the matter for consideration post-trial.
It remains possible that defendant, through the discovery allowed by the court post-trial,
may establish prejudice which would require as a sanction the setting aside of any
emotional distress damages that the jury might award. As to defendant’s request for an
adverse inference instruction, defendant has not proffered such an instruction and what
such an instruction would entail is not obvious to the court. At the conclusion of the trial,
upon defendant’s submission of a proposed adverse inference instruction, the court would
reconsider the matter. Furthermore, at oral argument, plaintiff stipulated to the authenticity
of phone records and agreed that her motion to quash subpoenas is moot. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s emergency motion to quash subpoenas (Doc. 85) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2016
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
May 9, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-3-