Glover v. Kirsher et al
Filing
28
ORDER denying as moot 18 Motion to Compel; granting 19 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying as moot 22 Motion to Produce; granting 27 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 9/3/2014. (agm1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Barnett Glover,
:
Plaintiff,
Dr. Kirsher, et al.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-976
:
v.
:
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Kemp
:
Defendants.
:
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on two motions to compel
filed by plaintiff Barnett Glover (Docs. 18 and 22).
Also before
the Court is Mr. Glover’s motion for an extension of time for
discovery (Doc. 19) and motion for leave to file a reply to
defendants’ supplemental response (Doc. 27).
For the reasons set
forth below, Mr. Glover’s motion for leave and motion for
extension of time will be granted, but his motions to compel will
be denied as moot.
I.
Mr. Glover is a prisoner currently incarcerated at
Chillicothe Correctional Institution.
He filed the instant
lawsuit against defendants, all medical personnel at the prison,
alleging that he was denied proper medical care in violation of
his constitutional rights.
On July 17, 2014, Mr. Glover filed a motion to compel
discovery (Doc. 18).
In the motion, Mr. Glover argues that
defendants have failed to produce responses to his
interrogatories and documents in response to his requests for
production.
Mr. Glover claims that defendants have, inter alia,
deprived him access to his medical records.
On the same day, Mr.
Glover filed a motion requesting that the Court grant him a
thirty-day extension to complete discovery.
(Doc. 19).
Mr.
Glover requested the extension to “allow the plaintiff’s [sic] to
complete their responsibility as it pertains to discovery.”
On July 31, 2014, defendants filed a response to the motion
to compel discovery and the motion for an extension of time.
(Doc. 20).
In their response, defendants oppose the motion to
compel discovery, but they do not oppose the motion for extension
of time.
Defendants first argue that the motion to compel should
be denied because Mr. Glover does not and cannot certify that he
made a good faith effort to confer with defendants regarding the
requested discovery prior to filing the motion to compel with the
Court.
Further, defendants argue that, contrary to Mr. Glover’s
assertions, they did not refuse to provide answers to the
interrogatories.
Instead, they “simply requested ... more time
to answer them.”
Defendants do not dispute that Mr. Glover is
entitled to answers to the interrogatories, and they insist that
the responses are forthcoming.
As to Mr. Glover’s request for medical records, defendants
agreed to produce the requested information consistent with
section 5120.21(C)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code, which provides,
in pertinent part:
Upon the signed written request of the inmate to whom the
record pertains together with the written request of
either a licensed attorney at law or a licensed physician
designated by the inmate, the department shall make the
inmate’s medical record available to the designated
attorney or physician. The record may be inspected or
copied by the inmate’s designated attorney or physician.
The department may establish a reasonable fee for the
copying of any medical record.
Defendants state that under ODRC Policy 07-ORD-11(F), Mr. Glover
can arrange a time to meet with a Health Care Administrator of
the prison to review his records.
Defendants explain that,
because of this ongoing litigation, Mr. Glover is permitted to
2
receive copies of the records for a reasonable fee, which is five
cents per page.
Mr. Glover filed a reply in response on August 6, 2014,
withdrawing his motion to compel to the extent that it applied to
the interrogatory responses in light of defendants’
representation that responses would be forthcoming.
As to his
request for access to his medical records, Mr. Glover insists
that he is entitled to this information and defendants bear the
burden to produce it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
Mr. Glover
requests that defense counsel call the Health Care Administrator
“to speed up the process” and requests that the copies be
provided to him free of charge because he is indigent.
Finally,
Mr. Glover reiterates that the extension of time is requested so
that defendants can respond to discovery properly.
Just one week later, on August 13, 2014, Mr. Glover filed a
“motion for order of production of documents.”
(Doc. 22).
Mr.
Glover once again requests his medical records and insists that
defendants are withholding them in violation of Rule 34.
Mr.
Glover refers to his motion to compel and states that:
[i]n response to that motion, the defendant’s [sic]
incorrectly state that the plaintiff can obtain the
records from certain medical staff. But as stated in
there [sic] response, the policy for the ODRC is clear ….
An inmate is only allowed a copy of his medical records
with a written request from a licensed attorney or a
licensed physician.
The plaintiff, who is indigent
cannot afford the [sic] hire these professionals to
obtain the copy of his medical records.
Id. at 1.
Once again, Mr. Glover requests that this Court order
the release of his medical records and copies at defendants’ (or
the institution’s) expense.
On August 20, 2014, defendants filed a motion for leave to
file a supplemental response to Mr. Glover’s initial motion to
compel.
(Doc. 23).
On August 22, 2014, the Court granted the
3
motion for leave for good cause shown.
In their supplemental
response, defendants state that they have informed Mr. Glover
“that while they will not provide him his entire medical records
[sic] free of charge, they will allow him to inspect his records,
and flag whichever pages he wishes to copy and keep, at a rate of
five cents per page.”
Defendants also attach the declaration of
Beth Higginbotham, Health Care Administrator for the Chillicothe
Correctional Institution, who avers that she “contacted [Mr.
Glover] about viewing his medical records about three weeks ago,
but he declined because he already knew what was in them.”
Defendants argue that Mr. Glover bears responsibility for viewing
his medical records but he has, to date, refused to do so.
Defendants further state that, although Mr. Glover is proceeding
in forma pauperis, he is not entitled to free discovery.
They
state that they are merely “asking for five cents a page, and are
not unconstitutionally denying [Mr. Glover] access to the
courts.”
One week later, on August 27, 2014, defendants filed an
opposition to Mr. Glover’s motion for order of production of
documents.
(Doc. 26).
Defendants refer to Mr. Glover’s motion
as “redundant” because “his prior motion to compel discovery
(Doc. 18) is still pending before this Court.”
Defendants
maintain that Mr. Glover once again does not and cannot certify
that he made a good faith effort to confer with defendants
regarding the requested discovery prior to filing the motion.
As
to the substance of Mr. Glover’s motion, defendants “rest on
their arguments made in their first response to Plaintiff’s
original motion to compel, and their supplemental response.”
Mr. Glover filed “a motion for leave to file a reply to
defendant’s supplemental response” on August 27, 2014.
27).
(Doc.
For good cause shown, the Court will grant Mr. Glover’s
motion for leave.
In his supplemental reply, Mr. Glover states
4
that “in the interest of compromise,” he will agree to pay five
cents per page for those pages he wishes to copy.
Mr. Glover
notes that “he would like to state his concerns to the Court, as
well as [sic] some actual context to the procedures of the
institution.”
He states:
State pay for an inmate is not posted on an inmates
[sic] account until the first or second month. In this
case, state pay will be posted on September 6, 2014.
Until this pay is posted, they (institutional staff),
will not allow any copies/items to be given to any
inmates until his ability to pay is verified by the
institutional cashier. A medical HCA has no authority in
this procedure.
Secondly, medical staff who will be supervising when
the plaintiff flags any medical files, will not, by
policy, answer any questions that pertain to these files.
Or any files that may be missing. What usually happens
is that most of the files will not be there, staff of
course will not attempt to find any missing files, and
when the plaintiff files a motion to this Court on that
issue, there will ab [sic] another affidavit from medical
staff attesting that the defendant's (Asst. Atty.
General), ensure that the medical files pertain to the
treatment of the severed finger from OSU, Adena, and the
institution be present fro [sic] this appointment.
Mr. Glover requests a sixty-day extension to allow the completion
of discovery.
Mr. Glover indicates that he has sent the request
to copy the files, as requested by defendants.
After reiterating
“his concerns pertaining to retaliation that may occur at this
appointment” when he inspects and requests copies of his medical
records, Mr. Glover “request[s] that if possible, the Motion to
Compel be put on hold, or allowed to sit until the conclusion of
discovery.”
II.
There has been an extensive amount of briefing with respect
to what, in essence, amounts to a motion to compel Mr. Glover’s
medical records to the extent that they pertain to the treatment
5
of his severed finger.
In that extensive briefing, an agreement
has emerged, wherein defendants have agreed to make Mr. Glover’s
medical records available and Mr. Glover has agreed to pay five
cents per copy for any copies that he wishes to make.
Although
Mr. Glover expresses some concerns about the procedure governing
the inspection, his concerns amount to nothing more than
speculation at this juncture.
If, indeed, there is some dispute
that arises in the midst of the inspection and copying, Mr.
Glover may bring that dispute to this Court’s attention in a
manner consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Consequently, Mr. Glover’s motions to compel discovery will be
denied as moot.
Similarly, both Mr. Glover and defendants agree that an
extension of time for discovery is necessary.
In the motion, Mr.
Glover requests an additional thirty days to complete discovery.
Defendants agree that the thirty-day extension requested is
reasonable and necessary.
Mr. Glover later changes that request
to sixty days, although he does not provide a compelling reason
for requesting the additional time.
For good cause shown, the
Court will grant Mr. Glover’s request as originally set forth in
his motion, allowing for an additional thirty days to complete
discovery.
This Court’s scheduling order provides a discovery
deadline of August 31, 2014.
In light of this Court’s decision
to grant the extension, discovery in this matter will now be due
on October 1, 2014 and any motions for summary judgment will be
due on December 1, 2014.
As indicated in this Court’s scheduling
order, if no motion for summary judgment is filed by the cut-off
date, and no other case-dispositive motion is pending on that
date, each party shall, within 30 days thereafter, submit a
pretrial statement as provided in that order.
III.
Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Glover’s motion for leave to
6
file a reply to defendants’ supplemental response (Doc. 27) is
granted.
However, Mr. Glover’s motions to compel (Docs. 18 and
22) are denied as moot.
Finally, Mr. Glover’s motion for an
extension of time for discovery (Doc. 19) is granted.
Discovery
in this matter is now due on October 1, 2014 and any motions for
summary judgment are due on December 1, 2014.
As indicated in
this Court’s scheduling order, if no motion for summary judgment
is filed by the cut-off date, and no other case-dispositive
motion is pending on that date, each party shall, within 30 days
thereafter, submit a pretrial statement as provided in that
order.
IV.
Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is
filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by a District Judge.
28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),
Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt.
I., F., 5.
The motion must specifically designate the order or
part in question and the basis for any objection.
Responses to
objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and
replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter.
The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set
aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the
filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge
or District Judge.
S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
7
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?