Watson v. Jamsen et al
Filing
48
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 45 Motion to Compel - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DERRYL WATSON,
Plaintiff,
No. 16-13770
v.
District Judge Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
CHARLES JAMSEN, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff, a Michigan Department of Corrections inmate
currently housed at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (“JCF”) in Jackson, Michigan
filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his medical condition before and after April, 2016 reconstructive foot surgery.
He alleges that complications arising after the foot surgery due to Defendants’ deliberate
indifference necessitated a second surgery.
Currently before the Court is Defendants Charles Jansen, M.D. and Mary Boayue,
P.A.’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s medical records, filed November 16, 2017 [Docket #45].
Defendants seek “a signed authorization for the release of Plaintiff’s medical records from
the Michigan Department of Corrections between January 19, 2017 and the present” for the
evaluation of Plaintiff’s current condition relative to the Complaint’s allegations of Eighth
-1-
Amendment violations. Docket #45, Pg ID 310. Defendants note that Plaintiff objected to
the request for the medical release for the current records on the basis that he did not allege
constitutional violations by Defendants occurring after May 7, 2016. Exhibit B, Docket #452. Plaintiff also objected to the discovery request on the basis that his “dental and mental
health records [are] not germane to this case and would be outside the scope of proper
discovery.” Id. However, Plaintiff has not responded to the present motion.
The proposed medical release states as follows:
By signing this form I am attesting to the fact that the records I am requesting
be released, and may include alcohol, substance abuse, mental health status,
and serious infections and communicable diseases . . . .” Exhibit A, Docket
#45-1,
Medical records post-dating May 7, 2016 are relevant and discoverable under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) because they are likely to reflect the impact, treatment, and
progress of medical treatment rendered before that date. As noted in the release, to
the extent that the requested medical forms contain information related to mental
health status, substance abuse, etc., they are discoverable. However, because Plaintiff
is not claiming emotional damages, the requested information will be limited to
records regarding medical treatment, and will not include separate psychiatric or
mental health treatment or counseling.
In addition, the discovery material provided herein will not be disclosed to any
individual or entity not involved in the prosecution or defense of this lawsuit. If any
such material is included as part of any motion or other filing with this Court, it will
-2-
be filed under seal, and will be unsealed only on order of the Court. Likewise, any
motion or other filing that discusses the content of Plaintiff’s medical records will be
filed under seal, although a redacted version may be publically filed.
Defendants’ motion [Doc. #45] is therefore GRANTED under the terms set
forth above. Plaintiff will sign the release for his medical records no later than 14
days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: December 6, 2017
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on December 6, 2017 that I electronically filed the foregoing
paper with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel
registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to nonregistered ECF participants on December 6, 2017.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager for the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen
-3-
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?