Williams v. Birkett et al
Filing
52
ORDER granting 32 Motion to Compel - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENNETH WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12755
DISTRICT JUDGE MARIANNE O. BATTANI
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB
THOMAS BIRKETT, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL [32]
I.
Background
Plaintiff Kenneth Williams, currently a prisoner at the Carson City Correctional Facility
(CCF) in Carson City, Michigan, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 against Defendants
Thomas Birkett (Warden of the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (STF)), Patricia Caruso
(former director of the MDOC), E. Balcarcel (Deputy Warden at STF), Valsicol Chemical
Corporation (owner of a chemical plant located in St. Louis, MI), Jennifer Granholm (former
Governor of the State of Michigan), R. Pung (a Resident Unit Manager at STF), the Michigan
Department of Corrections, Dr. Scott Holmes (a physician at CCF), Victoria Merren (a PA at
CCF), and Corizon Health.1 (Docket no. 1.) Plaintiff alleges through his Count I that while he
was incarcerated at STF, Defendant Birkett and former Defendants Balcarcel and Pung violated
1
On October 15, 2014, the Court dismissed Defendants MDOC, Valsicol Chemical
Corporation, Patricia Caruso, and Jennifer Granholm under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). On August 18,
2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Balcarcel and Pung. (Docket no.
44.) And on May 12, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to add Dr. Daniel Carrel as a
Defendant. (Docket no. 33.) Defendants Birkett and Carrel have not yet been served.
1
his Eighth Amendment rights when he was forced to drink water exposed to contamination caused
by former Defendant Valsicol. Plaintiff alleges through his Count II that Defendants Holmes,
Merren, Corizon, and Carrel delayed in providing him adequate medical care related to a tumor on
his leg, also in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
In February 2015, Defendants Holmes, Merren, and Corizon asked Plaintiff to authorize
the release of his medical records from the MDOC; Defendants sought records from 2009 through
the date of their request. (See docket no. 32-2.) Plaintiff refused, arguing that the records were
unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims. (See docket no. 32-3.) Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to
Compel the same. (Docket no. 32.) Plaintiff filed a Response (docket no. 35), and Defendants
filed a Reply (docket no. 36). All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned for
consideration. (Docket no. 11.) The Court dispenses with oral argument pursuant to E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(e). The Motion is now ready for ruling.
II.
Analysis
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.”
2
Surles ex rel. Johnson v.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007).
Rule 34 allows a party to serve requests for production of documents on an opposing party.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. A party receiving such a request has thirty days to respond with answers or
objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). If the party receiving discovery requests under the
Rules fails to respond properly, Rule 37 provides the party who sent the discovery with 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, 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).
Under MDOC Policy Directive 3.04.108Q, prisoner “[h]ealth information shall be released
only upon the prisoner’s written authorization or a court order.” P.D. 3.04.108Q. Because
Plaintiff has refused to sign such an authorization, Defendants ask the Court to order Plaintiff to do
so. (See docket no. 32.) Plaintiff argues that the information is not relevant because his claims
against Defendants only allege that his treatment was delayed, and “nothing in Plaintiff’s health
records . . . can be used to refute these facts.” (Docket no. 35 at 2.) Plaintiff offers to authorize
the release of his medical records since 2013, but Defendant argues that the information from
before 2013 is relevant to show other possible causes of his injury. (Docket no. 36 at 4.)
As Defendant notes, the Court has addressed this issue before:
. . . I [am] persuaded that the CMS defendants are entitled to the information
sought. To begin, “the federal courts do not recognize a federal physician-patient
privilege,” Hancock, 958 F.2d at 1373. Also, based upon the medical claims
asserted in the compliant, the information requested is relevant under Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(1). In the absence of a response from plaintiff asserting why there should be a
limitation on the disclosure of his medical records, I agree with the CMS
3
defendants that “[b]y raising issues of denial of access to appropriate medical
treatment by Defendants, Plaintiff has clearly placed into contest all of his medical
history, especially when Plaintiff cites a specific condition which he claims is not
being properly treated.” Doc. Ent. 82 at 18. In other words, as the CMS defendants
state, “Plaintiff's allegations bring his physical condition and medical records into
question and make Plaintiff's health records a legitimate source of inquiry and
investigation into the factual basis of his claims.” Doc. Ent. 82 at 19.
Finally, I agree that “[w]ithout the ability to verify any alleged treatment, or lack
thereof, counsel is hampered severely in the investigation of the basis of Plaintiff's
claims and discovery in this case.” Doc. Ent. 82 at 20.
Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-11740, 2009 WL 931165, at *5 (E.D. Mich., Mar. 31, 2009) (Komives,
M.J.) (footnote omitted). Plaintiff has provided no reason for the Court to decide otherwise in this
matter. By alleging that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide
constitutionally adequate medical care, Plaintiff has placed his medical record squarely at issue.
Thus, Defendants are entitled to review the same. Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiff to
execute an authorization to release his medical records.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel [32] is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’ is ordered to execute an authorization releasing his medical records to
Defendants within 14 days.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 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).
Dated: September 14, 2015
s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Report and Recommendation was served on counsel of
record and on Plaintiff Kenneth Williams on this date.
Dated: September 14, 2015
s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager
5
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?