Watson v. Jamsen et al
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 86 Motion to Compel- Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
District Judge Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
CHARLES JAMSEN, ET AL.,
Before the Court is Plaintiff Derryl Watson’s Motion to Compel Non-Party
Michigan Department of Corrections to Comply with Valid Subpoena and [to] Show
Cause why Court Shouldn’t Find MDOC in Contempt [ECF No. 86].
Plaintiff served a subpoena on the MDOC, requesting to inspect his medical
records, specifically “photographs and video taken of Plaintiff’s left foot and bandages
taken by Nurse Supervisor Brian Duckworth and Dr. M. Page on May 6, 2016 at DWH
(Duane Waters Hospital).” Motion, ECF No. 86, Page.ID.1178. Plaintiff states in his
motion that the MDOC replied that no photographs exist for the date requested. Id.
In its response [ECF No. 87], the MDOC states that on further review, it did locate
one photograph of Plaintiff’s foot was taken during the May 6, 2018 visit. A black and
white copy of the photograph is attached to the response. The photograph shows
unwrapped and bloodied dressing. The response also states that “videos are not a part of
the medical record,” and that the “MDOC is not certain that any responsive videos exist.”
ECF No. 87, Page.ID.1192.
Documents, photographs, or videos relating to May 6, 2016, if they exist, are
relevant to the condition of Plaintiff’s foot between April 19 and May 5, 2016. See
Opinion Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 97. Moreover,
the MDOC’s claim that videos and photographs are not formally “part of the medical
record” is beside the point. If they were taken by medical personnel in the course of
treatment or evaluation, they would be encompassed in Plaintiff’s request, regardless of
how the MDOC characterizes them. To find otherwise would be to elevate semantics over
The MDOC states that it is unsure if any videos exist. It will therefore undertake a
diligent and good faith investigation into whether it has any videos or other photographs
taken at the Plaintiff’s May 6, 2016 appointment. If such material exists and is in the
possession, custody, or control of the MDOC, Plaintiff will be permitted to examine that
material. If it does not exist, the MDOC will notify the Plaintiff of such. Plaintiff will
also be permitted to examine the original photograph from which the copy submitted with
the response was made.
I find no basis, however, to consider contempt proceedings against the MDOC.
Under these terms, Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No.86] is GRANTED to the extent that
the MDOC will permit the Plaintiff to inspect this material as discussed above.
The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s request to issue a show cause/contempt
order to the MDOC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2019
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on September 25, 2019 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 the following nonregistered ECF participants September 25, 2019.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager for the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen
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?