Ollie et al v. Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc. et al

Filing 65

ORDER - Plaintiffs' objection to Interrogatory 10 is overruled. As to Interrogatory 22, Plaintiffs shall either serve a specific written answer to each paragraph of the interrogatory or identify by Bates-stamp number(s) (or other similarly sp ecific description) the medical record responsive or the interrogatory paragraphs. If Plaintiffs are unable to answer the interrogatory after diligently attempting to locate the information (including by review of documents within their possession or control), they must so state. Plaintiffs' responses to interrogatories 10 and 22 as required by this order shall be served on or before September 14, 2021. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (LAC)

Download PDF
8:20-cv-00330-RFR-CRZ Doc # 65 Filed: 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA TAMMY S. OLLIE, and RYAN E. OLLIE, Plaintiffs, 8:20CV330 vs. ORDER NEBRASKA METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., THE NEBRASKA METHODIST HOSPITAL, BRENT J TIERNEY, M.D.; PHYSICIANS CLINIC, INC., NICOLE SIMONS, R.N.; and AUREUS NURSING, LLC., Defendants. A discovery conference was held on August 27, 2021 to discuss Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ Interrogatories. The interrogatories and responses at issue are: INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Do you claim that Defendant Nicole Simons, RN and/or anyone else acting on behalf of the Defendant Aureus Nursing, LLC, made any admissions against their interests? ANSWER: Objection, vague and ambiguous, as at this time, it is not known who "anyone else acting on behalf of the Defendant Aureus Nursing, LLC" would be. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: As a result of the injuries alleged in your Complaint, please state: a. What was date of the last treatment that Plaintiff Tammy S. Ollie received; b. What was the nature of the last treatment that Plaintiff Tammy S. Ollie received; and 8:20-cv-00330-RFR-CRZ Doc # 65 Filed: 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 202 c. Who administered the last treatment that Plaintiff Tammy S. Ollie received. ANSWER: Please refer to Plaintiffs medical records. After considering the parties’ respective positions, the court finds that Interrogatory 10 is neither vague or not ambiguous, and Plaintiffs’ response to Interrogatory 22 is not an answer because it lacks sufficient specificity. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiffs’ objection to Interrogatory 10 is overruled. 2) As to Interrogatory 22, Plaintiffs shall either serve a specific written answer to each paragraph of the interrogatory or identify by Bates-stamp number(s) (or other similarly specific description) the medical record responsive or the interrogatory paragraphs. If Plaintiffs are unable to answer the interrogatory after diligently attempting to locate the information (including by review of documents within their possession or control), they must so state. 3) Plaintiffs’ responses to interrogatories 10 and 22 as required by this order shall be served on or before September 14, 2021. September 7, 2021. BY THE COURT: s/ Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge

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?