Hoffman v. Gdowski

Filing 52

ORDER Granting 43 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. (MacKay, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case No.: 19-13691

ROBERT HOFFMAN ,
Plaintiff,

Linda V. Parker
United States District Judge

v.
SARA S. GDOWSKI,
Defendant.
____________________________/

Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 43)
Plaintiff Robert Hoffman is proceeding without the assistance of counsel in
this prisoner civil rights matter. He is currently in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). Plaintiff filed a motion to compel
Defendant Gdowski to provide a signed copy of interrogatory responses and to
supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 11 of Plaintiff’s Fourth
Interrogatories. (ECF No. 43). Defendant has since provided a signed copy of the
interrogatories; the first issue is now moot. (See Plaintiff’s reply, ECF No. 47).
Interrogatory No. 11 states:
Per the 10-09-19 at 4:14 pm email that stated: “Per policy
if the clinician does not agree with the decision of the
review, you will need to contact your RMD. if you accept
this ATP please forward the document, along with your
response of ‘I accept’ to MDOC-NXG-ACCEPT-ATP.
Thank you.” Upon a review of Hoffman’s medical
records or your recolection [sic] did you take either one
of these steps to disagree or accept the ATP of 10-09-19.

(ECF No. 46, PageID.272). After reviewing Plaintiff’s motion to compel,
Defendant provided a supplemental response. She stated, “Defendant accepted the
outcome of the 407. At Plaintiff’s next appointment, she resubmitted the 407
request on November 4, 2019, and it was approved on November 6, 2019.” (ECF
No. 46-2, PageID.277). Defendant states her supplemental response makes the
motion to compel moot. Plaintiff argues this supplemental response is evasive and
incomplete as it does not answer the question asked.
The motion is GRANTED. Defendant must provide a signed supplemental
response to Interrogatory No. 11 specifically answering the question posed, or
explaining why the first supplemental answer satisfies the interrogatory. Gdowski
must comply within 14 days of entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order, but
are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not
assign as error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order
to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection
is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling

2

remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge
or a district judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2.
Date: October 7, 2021

s/Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on October 7, 2021, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Kristen MacKay
Case Manager
[phone]

3