Woodall v. Pitchard et al
Filing
89
DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion to Dismiss. ORDERED, that Defendants motion [#66] is granted in part and denied in part; it is granted insofar as it seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering any evidence of emotion al injury resulting from the alleged assault by Defendants, and is otherwise denied; and it is furtherORDERED that Plaintiffs claim for emotional injury is withdrawn with prejudice; and it is furtherORDERED, that to the extent that Defendants still s eek production of the mental health records, they should make an appropriate application before the Honorable Jonathan W. Feldman, the United States Magistrate Judge to whom this action is referred for all non-dispositive pretrial matters.Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 6/27/12. (KAP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
BRYAN WOODALL, #99-R-6078,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
-vs08-CV-6228 CJS
CORRECTION OFFICER GARY
PRITCHARD, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
Plaintiff is a former prison inmate and Defendants were employed at Attica
Correctional Facility at all relevant times. The Complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and alleges that Defendants assaulted Plaintiff, causing him physical and
emotional injuries.
Defendants made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain records from Plaintiff
concerning mental health treatment that he received after being released from prison.
When Plaintiff failed to produce those records, Defendants filed the subject motion (Docket
No. [#66]) for sanctions under FRCP 37. Specifically, Defendants asked the Court to
dismiss the action, pursuant to FRCP 37(b)(2)(A)(v), or in the alternative, to issue an order
precluding Plaintiff from pursuing a claim for emotional damages at trial, granting their
request for an adverse jury instruction, and ordering Plaintiff to reimburse them for the cost
of bringing the motion.
Plaintiff’s counsel responded by indicating that he was withdrawing the claim for
emotional injuries. He further stated that the mental health records contain no relevant
information concerning the alleged use of force by Defendants, and he offered to submit
the records to the Court for in camera inspection. See, Cecutti Aff. [#76] at ¶ 8 (“[T]here
are no references of the incident in these records.”). As for the delay, Plaintiff’s counsel
1
indicated that he had been delayed in receiving the records, because of Plaintiff’s
“transgender status.” Id. at ¶ 5. That is, Plaintiff, whose birth name is Bryan Woodall,
signed the medical authorization forms using the female name “Misty Woodall,” after which
the medical providers required that Plaintiff execute new release forms.
Defendants counter that Plaintiff should still have to produce the records and pay
Defendants’ costs in bringing the motion.
Having considered the parties’ submissions and the factors relevant to a motion
under FRCP 37(b)(2)(A)(v), see, e.g., Murray v. Mitsubishi Motors of North America, Inc.,
462 Fed.Appx. 88, 90, 2012 WL 516495 at *1 (2d Cir. Feb. 17, 2012), it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion [#66] is granted in part and denied in part; it
is granted insofar as it seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering any evidence of emotional
injury resulting from the alleged assault by Defendants, and is otherwise denied; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim for emotional injury is withdrawn with prejudice; and
it is further
ORDERED, that to the extent that Defendants still seek production of the mental
health records, they should make an appropriate application before the Honorable
Jonathan W. Feldman, the United States Magistrate Judge to whom this action is referred
for all non-dispositive pretrial matters.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
Rochester, New York
June 27, 2012
ENTER:
/s/ Charles J. Siragusa
CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA
United States District Judge
2
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?