Prince v. Farris et al

Filing 87

ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT FARRIS'S MOTION (ECF No. 85 ) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S MAY 17, 2024 ORDER (ECF No. 81 ); and, (2) SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT FARRIS'S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 86 ) Response due by 6/24/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (KBro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY PRINCE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:23-cv-10405
District Judge Judith E. Levy
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

KIM FARRIS, TAYLOR
DROSTE, CHRISTOPHER
SHEFFIELD, EDWARD
SIMMET, IVAN HERNANDEZ,
TRENT BROWN, DEWAYNE
PERRY, BRANDON
FRANGEDAKIS, LAWRENCE
MCKINNEY, CAMERON TATE,
BRADLEY MICHALOWICZ,
and JOHN DOES 1-2,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT FARRIS’S MOTION (ECF No. 85)
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S MAY 17, 2024 ORDER
(ECF No. 81); and, (2) SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT FARRIS’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF
No. 86)
Defendant Farris has filed a motion (ECF No. 85) for reconsideration of the
Court’s order (ECF No. 81) granting Plaintiff’s motion to restrict dates of
subpoena (ECF No. 77) as unopposed. It seems that Defendant, in March 2024,
served Plaintiff with two items: (1) a subpoena for his complete institutional
record, from January 2022 to present (ECF No. 85-1); and, (2) a request for

production of documents to Plaintiff, which asks Plaintiff to execute an
authorization for the release of his MDOC medical records, from January 2022 to
present (ECF No. 85-2).
Plaintiff’s April 9, 2024 motion attached only the MDOC authorization form
(see ECF No. 77, PageID.448); however, the title of Plaintiff’s motion sought to
restrict dates on subpoena (see ECF No. 77, PageID.444). Reflecting on the
Court’s resulting order, Defendant Farris now recounts that the MDOC
authorization form was a “confusing exhibit.” (ECF No. 85, PageID.473 ¶ 5; id.,
PageID.484.) Nonetheless, the Court’s order granted Plaintiff’s motion as
unopposed and further stated: “Defendants are to be given Plaintiff’s ‘records
starting from the day of Plaintiff’s surgery up until now” (ECF No. 77,
PageID.444), i.e., July 16, 2022 to present.’” (See ECF No. 81, PageID.461.)
Upon consideration, Defendant Farris’s motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 85) is GRANTED; the Court’s May 17, 2024 order (ECF No. 81) is limited to
“Defendant Farris’ March 22, 2024, subpoena to the MDOC,” (ECF No. 85,
PageID.476, 486; see also ECF No. 85-1.) Moreover, no later than June 24, 2024,
Plaintiff SHALL file any response to Defendant Farris’s motion to compel (ECF
No. 86), which concerns Defendant Farris’s March 22, 2024 request for production
of documents, i.e., the MDOC “Patient’s Authorization for Disclosure of Health
Information” (see ECF Nos. 85-2, 86-1). Plaintiff should bear in mind that when a
2

party alleges physical, emotional or psychological injuries, the opposing party is
generally entitled to discovery of the injured person’s healthcare records for a
reasonable window of time both before and after the injury occurred (and to
present, if ongoing injuries are alleged), in order to determine whether there were
any pre-existing conditions or injuries that may be attributable to another source
and to determine if the injuries have worsened, improved or completely healed.
Moreover, discovery of this type of information is often appropriately sought from
multiple healthcare providers.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

Dated: June 5, 2024

Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
3