Brodigan v. Roberts et al

Filing 111

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan's "Motion for Discovery" (Doc. 94 ) is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/14/20. (KKS)

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 111 Filed: 05/14/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 852

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID JAMES BRODIGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BEN E. SWINK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-cv-00273-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff David James Brodigan’s “Motion for
Discovery.” (Doc. 94.) Plaintiff seeks “the full identity and mailing address of the individual
referred to in the [Plaintiff’s] medical file as ‘Kelly’ this person was an employee at Vista Imaging
of Jefferson County in 2016 during the time that the plaintiff was transported there for urgent
ultrasound of his testicles on 7-8-16.” (Id. at 2.) In addition, Plaintiff seeks to depose the two
correctional officers who transported him to his appointment at Vista Imaging. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff
asserts that the officers “are first hand witnesses to the events that took place that day at Vista
Imaging as well as St. Mary’s Hospital.” (Id.) Defendants have not responded.
Plaintiff describes his July 8, 2016, visit to Vista Imaging as follows:
On 7-8-16, after I self declared a medical emergency and was
examined . . . I was sent to Vista Imaging in Festus, Mo. for a complete ultrasound
on both testicles. The results of the ultrasound illustrated a “significantly decreased
blood flow to the right testicle relative to the left testicle, as well as partial torsion
of the right testicle.”
...
While still on site at Vista Imaging, an unknown female medical person[n]el stated
to the transport officer, “He needs to be taken to the Emergency Room or he’ll lose
that testicle.”
1

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 111 Filed: 05/14/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 853

...
After the above mentioned statement was made to the transport officer he
telephoned [Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center] and spoke to
unknown Corizon employee and was instructed to wait at Vista Imaging for further
instructions. After sitting and waiting in the waiting room at Vista Imaging for
approximately two hours, the transport officer informs me that he has been
instructed not to take me to the nearest emergency room but to transport me instead
to Jefferson City, Mo. to St. Mary’s Hospital E.R.
(Doc. 79 at ¶¶ 39-41.) Thereafter, according to Plaintiff, the Correctional Officers transported him
to the St. Mary’s emergency department, where a doctor determined no medical intervention was
necessary without personally examining Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 42.)
The apparent significance of these events is that Corizon officials chose a less prudent
course of treatment in an effort to reduce costs by transporting Plaintiff to St. Mary’s, with which
Corizon allegedly has a contract for services, rather than capable facilities nearby, resulting in
substandard medical treatment. (Id. at ¶¶ 41-42.) However, this assertion, even if true, does not
require discovery of the identity of “Kelly” or the testimony of the transporting correctional
officers. Plaintiff does not allege wrongdoing by any of those three and fails to explain how their
testimony is likely to lead to other discoverable and admissible information on his claim of
deliberate indifference. (See Doc. 94.) Specifically, all three alleged statements are inadmissible
and “Kelly’s” purported statements are inadmissible and unnecessary in light of Plaintiff’s detailed
medical records on which he bases his § 1983 claim.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan’s “Motion for
Discovery” (Doc. 94) is DENIED.
Dated this 14th day of May, 2020.
________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2