Woollard v. Corizon Health Inc. et al
Filing
69
ORDER DENYING IN PART in part and DEEMING RESOLVED in part Plaintiff's 63 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CORY WOOLLARD,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11529
District Judge Paul D. Borman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
Plaintiff
v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC.,
RICKEY COLEMAN, and
ROSILYN JINDAL,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING IN PART and DEEMING RESOLVED IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S JANUARY 10, 2020 MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 63)
A.
Background
Cory Woollard filed the instant lawsuit in pro per on May 15, 2018. (ECF
No. 1.) His September 17, 2018 amended complaint, which is the operative
pleading, alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment and names three Defendants:
(1) Corizon Health, Inc.; (2) Richard Harbaugh; and, (3) Rosilyn Jindal. (ECF No.
28.) In October 2019, Rickey Coleman was substituted for Richard Harbaugh.
(ECF Nos. 60, 62.)
Each of the Defendants has appeared via counsel. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 56, 57,
58, 64, 65.) The deadline for the completion of discovery is June 18, 2020, and the
1
deadline for all motions, including dispositive motions, is July 20, 2020. (ECF No.
67.)
B.
Discovery Requests
Plaintiff served six requests for production of documents (presumably to
Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.), six requests for admission to Coleman, and
eleven requests for admission to Jindal. (ECF No. 66-1.) Defendants’ combined
response is dated November 27, 2019. (ECF No. 66-2.)
It seems that Plaintiff wrote to defense counsel on December 9, 2019. (ECF
No. 63, PageID.489) By a letter dated December 18, 2019, defense counsel
responded that, as to the second and third interrogatories, there were “no
responsive documents pursuant to your request for such emails from Ms. Jindal.”
(Id.) As to Defendants Coleman and Jindal’s responses to the requests for
admissions, defense counsel explained: “we do not waive the objections to the
Request for Admissions, since without a specific date of service we cannot answer
the request as written as it would require speculation.” (Id.)
C.
Instant Motion
Judge Borman has referred this case to me for pretrial matters. (ECF No. 7.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s January 10, 2020 motion for an order to
compel discovery, which concerns three requests to produce email exchanges and
four requests for admission. (ECF No. 63, PageID.484-488.)
2
Defendants submitted a supplemental response on January 22, 2020. (ECF
No. 66-3, PageID.525-527.) Two days later, on January 24, 2020, Defendants filed
a response to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 66, PageID.503-504.) Plaintiff’s reply
was filed on February 19, 2020, although it was dated February 10 and postmarked February 13. (ECF No. 68.)
D.
Discussion
1.
The three requests to produce copies of emails
Three of the Requests to Produce seek copies of “all e-mail exchanges
between . . . Jindal” and various others “pertaining to Plaintiff between the dates
October 1, 2017 until October 1, 2019[.]” (ECF No. 66-1, PageID.506 (emphasis
added).) As to each of these, Defendants formally responded on November 27,
2019 or as supplemented on January 22, 2020: “There are no documents
responsive to this request.” (ECF No. 66-2, PageID.514-515; ECF No. 66-3,
PageID.525-526.)
Even if Plaintiff’s motion takes issue with defense counsel’s December 18,
2019 less formal colloquy, when the parties were conferring by correspondence in
advance of the instant motion, that “there are no responsive documents pursuant to
your request for such emails from Ms. Jindal[,]” the actual written responses to
these requests were not “textually limited.” (ECF No. 63, PageID.485, 489
(emphasis added).) The responses are signed by counsel, either by his own hand or
3
with permission, and the Court must take him at his word. (ECF No. 66-2,
PageID.521; ECF No. 66-3, PageID.527.) Put another way, the Court cannot
compel Defendants “to produce the threaded emails, i.e., the original emails in
addition to all replies and forwards[,]” (ECF No. 63, PageID.486), if there are no
such documents.
2.
The four allegedly “vague and ambiguous” requests for
admission
a.
Requests to Admit (a) and (b) to Coleman
Plaintiff asked Coleman to admit that, “at the time [he] issued the deferrals
for the special accommodations cited in the complaint filed in this matter,” he:
[was] aware of the fact that Plaintiff was a T 7 paraplegic,
paralyzed from the breastbone down, and that this condition
was likely permanent[;] [and,]
had no information that Plaintiff’s medical condition had
improved to the point where he [no] longer required these
accommodations.
(ECF No. 66-1, PageID.508.) Although defense counsel originally objected to
these requests to admit as “vague and ambiguous” for not specifying “a date of
service,” (ECF No. 66-2, PageID.516-517), the supplemental response, signed by
defense counsel, responds to these requests as follows:
Defendant objects to this request on the basis that Plaintiff’s
MDOC medical records speak for themselves and no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
admits Plaintiff was a paraplegic.
4
Defendant objects to this request on the basis that Plaintiff’s
MDOC medical records speak for themselves and no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, as stated in his
November 15, 2017 ACMO review, Defendant deferred the
single person cell as Plaintiff did not meet the MDOC
requirements for such accommodation. Defendant deferred the
TENS unit as the MDOC does not allow the TENS unit.
Defendant asked for more information as to why Plaintiff
required foam soap instead of regular soap. Defendant denies
the request in all other aspects.
(ECF No. 66-3, PageID.526-527; see also ECF No. 28, PageID.201 ¶ 21.)
Plaintiff’s January 10, 2020 motion is based on the initial response, which
was supplemented on January 22, 2020. (ECF No. 63, PageID.487.) Since then,
the written response has been supplemented, and Defendants’ motion response
explains the supplementation. (ECF No. 66, PageID.503; ECF No. 66-3,
PageID.526-527.) As Plaintiff points out in his reply, “the issue of discovery as to
Defendant Coleman [is] resolved . . .” as to these two requests to admit. (ECF No.
68, PageID.533.)
b.
Requests to Admit (a) and (b) to Jindal
Plaintiff claims to have asked the same requests of Jindal. (ECF No. 63,
PageID.487.) However, as Defendants point out, this is not so. (ECF No. 66,
PageID.503-504; compare ECF No. 66-1, PageID.508, with ECF No. 66-1,
PageID.510.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is denied to the extent it asks the Court to
compel Jindal to answer a request to admit that has not yet been posed to her.
5
Plaintiff’s reply confirms the Court’s suspicion that Plaintiff intended to
refer to the 1st and 2nd requests to admit that he did post to Jindal:
Please ADMIT that, as a result of your personal examination of
Plaintiff and review of his medical history, you were aware of
the fact that Plaintiff was a T 7 paraplegic, paralyzed from the
breastbone down.
Please ADMIT that, as a result of your personal examination of
Plaintiff and review of his medical history, you were aware of
the fact that Plaintiff’s condition as a paraplegic was likely
permanent.
(ECF No. 66-1, PageID.510-511; ECF No. 68, PageID.534.) The response, signed
by defense counsel, states as to each of these requests: “Defendant objects to this
request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous in that it does not specify a date
of service.” (ECF No. 66-2, PageID.518 (emphasis added).)
Given that Coleman and Jindal each initially objected to the 1st and 2nd
requests to admit posed to them as “vague and ambiguous,” Plaintiff wonders why
Jindal cannot supplement her answer, as Coleman did. (ECF No. 68, PageID.535.)
However, Defendants have already explained that their review of the amended
complaint enabled them to discern the date referenced in the discovery requests to
Coleman. (ECF No. 66, PageID.503.) In the Undersigned’s opinion, requiring
Jindal to respond to these requests to admit, as they are currently drafted, would
require her to speculate as to the date of the personal examination to which the
requests refer. (ECF No. 66, PageID.504.) Of course, because the discovery
6
deadline has now been set for June 18, 2020, Plaintiff remains free to serve
another, more specific request to admit.
E.
Order
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s January 10, 2020 motion for an order to compel
discovery (ECF No. 63) is DENIED as to the three requests to produce copies of
emails, DEEMED RESOLVED as to the 1st and 2nd requests to admit to Coleman,
and DENIED to the extent it is based on the 1st and 2nd requests to admit to Jindal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 21, 2020
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
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?