Sharpe v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
Filing
122
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 Motion to Compel as set forth in Order; granting 104 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff shall have until June 20, 2014, to file any supplemental responses to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 70 and 92 ; and denying 110 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 05/16/2014.(dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Martin James Sharpe, #200480,
a/k/a James Martin Sharpe,
a/k/a James Sharpe,
) C/A No. 4:13-1538-DCN-TER
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Order
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections, SCDC; Dr.
)
William Akerman, SCDC Dental Director; Dwight D.
)
McMillian, Broad River CI; Dr. Joseph Ubah, Dentist
)
Lee CI; McClary, Dental Assistant, Lee CI; Gregg,
)
Dental Assistant, Broad River CI,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________________ )
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. # 80), Motion to Amend
his Motion to Compel (doc. #110), and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant
McMillan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (104). (Docs. #80, #104, #110). Defendants have filed
Responses in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the production of certain
documents from Defendants SCDC, Akerman, Ubah, McClary, and Gregg (hereinafter
“Defendants”). He asserts that the Defendants provided incomplete responses to his Requests to
Produce (Requests). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendants did not completely respond to his
Request for Production Nos. 1-6. Defendants filed a response in opposition asserting that they have
responded appropriately to his requests. The court will address each disputed request in turn.
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of documents to Defendants and their responses are as
follows:
Request No. 1.
A copy of all dental x-rays/radiographs contained in
Plaintiff’s dental records to especially include the x-rays
taken at the following dental appointments: two x-rays taken
on October 28, 2010, of tooth 7 and tooth 4; x-rays taken of
tooth 11 on January 7, 2010; x-rays of tooth 15 taken
November 18, 2009; x-rays of tooth 13, taken August 9,
2012; x-rays taken of tooth 16 on both February 28, 2012, and
March 14, 2013; and, a full mouth x-ray taken at the oral
surgeon visit on April 16, 2013.
Response:
The Defendants object to the Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, is unreasonably burdensome,
oppressive and cumbersome, is irrelevant and will not
lead to relevant or admissible evidence. The
Defendants further object on the grounds that some of
the information and documentation is privileged and
confidential, is restricted and is protected by security
reasons.
Without waiving the objections, Plaintiff has a copy
of his SCDC dental records. The x-rays, if they exist,
are not relevant to the issues raised by Plaintiff in his
Complaint, and Plaintiff does not have the knowledge
or the equipment necessary to interpret the x-rays.
The SCDC dentists focus on the patient’s presentation
and complaints and make treatment decision based
upon education, training and experience and upon the
findings from the physical exams and tests.
(Doc. #84-1).
In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asserts that these x-rays are the “linchpin” of his case
because they show the severity and seriousness of Plaintiff’s dental condition, the need for attention,
and the fact that the Defendants knew of that need. Plaintiff asserts that he has a family member who
is a dental assistant who will have her employer interpret the x-rays. Plaintiff argues that Defendants
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that Plaintiff cannot provide competent
medical/dental evidence to support his claims, but the only reason he has not been able to do so is
because Defendants refuse to provide the necessary discovery to allow Plaintiff to obtain expert
2
evidence.
In response to Request No. 1 of the Motion to Compel, Defendants state that x-rays are not
relevant to the issues raised by Plaintiff in his Complaint.1 Defendants further state that Plaintiff has
a copy of the written SCDC dental records, and that the x-rays will not support Plaintiff’s contention
that he did not receive dental care. (#84). Defendants further assert that because of security reasons,
an inmate should not be in possession of x-rays. Defendants request that if the Court orders them
to produce a copy of the dental x-rays, that the court order Plaintiff to pay in advance by certified
check or money order for the cost of copying the x-rays and to order Plaintiff to disclose the name
and address of the dentist who is going to review the x-rays so that Defendants can mail the x-rays
1
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants denied him dental treatment.
(Doc. #59). Plaintiff asserts that he went to the dental department at Broad River Correctional
Institute (BRCI) and complained of severe pain in tooth No. 16. Id. Plaintiff contends that Dr.
Dwight D. McMillan filled tooth No. 16 with his consent. Id. On February 28, 2012, Plaintiff alleges
he returned to dental and informed Defendants McMillan and Gregg, dental assistant, that the filling
in tooth No. 16 had not helped and that he was still in extreme pain because of it. Id. Plaintiff alleges
that tooth No. 16 was numbed and an x-ray taken. Id. Subsequently, Dr. McMillan informed him that
the root curved into the cheekbone and required an oral surgeon to remove it. Id. However, at this
dental appointment, defendants McMillan and Gregg filled tooth No. 12 while knowing that the
cavity in tooth No. 12 was superficial while the cavity was more severely decayed in tooth No. 13
and in need of more immediate care. Id. It was not determined until five months later that tooth No.
12 could not be saved and would need to be extracted. Id. Plaintiff alleges that due to the failure to
address tooth 13 by Defendants McMillan and Gregg, it resulted in the loss of tooth No. 13. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he went to sick call on several occasions complaining of pain in his teeth. Id.
On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff alleged that he was seen in dental complaining of extreme pain in
teeth Nos. 5, 7, and 16 and was told that the filling in tooth No. 7 had fallen out. Id. A temporary
filling was placed in tooth No. 7. Id. On December 11, 2012, Plaintiff asserts he was seen in dental
complaining of sever facial pain due to teeth Nos. 5 and 16. Id. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Joseph
Ubah at Lee Correctional Institute on March 14, 2013, complaining of pain in tooth numbers 5 and
16 but that the pain in tooth 16 was the worse. Id. An x-ray of tooth 16 was taken, and it was
severely infected so that he was given antibiotics but no dental help for the pain in tooth No. 5. Id.
Plaintiff alleges he was finally taken to the oral surgeon on April 16, 2013, where tooth No. 16 was
extracted. Id. However, Plaintiff alleges he has been in constant pain due to tooth No. 5 because of
Defendants’ policy of addressing only one tooth at a time. Id.
3
directly to the dentist. (Id.).
The Defendant is given five (5) days from the date of this order to inform the Plaintiff and
the court the cost of copying the x-rays. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall make payment for the cost of
copying no later than June 3, 2014, to Defendants’ attorney2 and provide Defendants’ attorney with
the name and address of the dentist to whom he wants the x-rays sent. Within five (5) days from
receipt of payment from Plaintiff, Defendants shall provide copies of the x-rays to the dentist
designated by Plaintiff. Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of the correspondence to the
designated dentist accompanying the x-rays, specifying and identifying the x-rays provided. If
Plaintiff does not provide payment and the name and address of the designated dentist as set forth
above, Request No. 1 of his Motion to Compel is denied.
In Requests Nos. 2 and 3 of the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff requested the following:
Request No. 2:
All dental requests filed by Plaintiff to dental in Defendants’
possession. . .
Response:
The Defendants object to the Request on the grounds that it
is overly broad, is unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and
cumbersome, is irrelevant and will not lead to relevant or
admissible evidence. The Defendants further object on the
grounds that some of the information and documentation is
privileged and confidential, is restricted and is protected by
security reasons.
Without waiving the objections, Plaintiff has a copy of his
SCDC dental records. The x-rays, if they exist, are not
relevant to the issues raised by Plaintiff in his Complaint, and
Plaintiff does not have the knowledge or the equipment
necessary to interpret the x-rays. The SCDC dentists focus on
the patient’s presentation and complaints and make treatment
2
Payable to James E. Parham Jr., and mailed to James E. Parham, Jr., PO Box 1576, Irmo,
SC 29063.
4
decision based upon education, training and experience and
upon the findings from the physical exams and tests.
Request No. 3:
All sick call requests filed by Plaintiff in Defendants’
possession.
Response:
The Defendants object to the Request on the grounds that it is overly
broad, is unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and cumbersome, is
irrelevant and will not lead to relevant or admissible evidence. The
Defendants further object on the grounds that some of the
information and documentation is privileged and confidential, is
restricted and is protected by security reasons.
Without waiving the objections, Plaintiff has a copy of his SCDC
dental records. The x-rays, if they exist, are not relevant to the issues
raised by Plaintiff in his Complaint, and Plaintiff does not have the
knowledge or the equipment necessary to interpret the x-rays. The
SCDC dentists focus on the patient’s presentation and complaints and
make treatment decision based upon education, training and
experience and upon the findings from the physical exams and tests.
In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have repeatedly claimed that he
did not complain of pain at dental visits or sick call visits. However, Plaintiff argues that once he
receives responses to Requests Nos. 2 and 3, he can refute Defendants’ claims.
In response to the Motion to Compel Requests Nos. 2 and 3, Defendants assert that
“Plaintiffs dental and sick call requests (Requests #2 and #3), if they exist, may contain his
‘complaints’ that are one of many factors considered by the SCDC dentists when providing dental
care, but the Plaintiff’s complaints may not, and many times do not, correspond to the actual
problems that need to be treated. The same holds true for any grievances Plaintiff filed regarding
his dental care.” (Doc. #84). Defendants assert that each time Plaintiff presented to the dentist, he
received dental care.
The court finds that Plaintiff’s Requests Nos. 2 and 3 are relevant to the claim. However,
5
a court can limit discovery when the burden of the discovery would outweigh the benefits. Rule
26(b)(2)(C)(iii), Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendants are ordered to produce any and all sick call and dental
requests by Plaintiff from January 5, 2012, through June 7, 2013, the date the complaint was filed.
Defendants shall produce the documents that are in their possession, custody, or control within ten
(10) days of the date of this order.3
Request No. 4:
All grievances with the code ME/DE filed by Plaintiff since
September 18, 2009. Plaintiff only has copies of the Step One
grievances no: BRCI-1438-09 and BRCI-1289-10. He does
not have copies of the Step 2s for these grievance numbers.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has either Step One or Step two copies
for grievance no: BRCI 1538-10. Lastly Plaintiff filed a
grievance in 2011 (number unknown). (Plaintiff does not
have copies of above due to confiscation by Defendants
SCDC on 4-25-12.).
Response:
Defendants object to the Request on the grounds that it is
overly broad, is unreasonably burdensome, oppressive, and
cumbersome, is irrelevant and will not lead to relevant or
admissible evidence regarding Federal Claims pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff should have a copy of the grievances
he filed and the responses he received or he should submit a
request to the grievance office asking for copies.
(Doc. #84-1).
In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asserts that he can refute Defendants’ allegations that he
did not complain of pain at dental visits or sick call requests. Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s
complaints may not, and many times do not, correspond to the actual problems that need to be
treated.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted with respect to Request No. 4 of his Motion to Compel.
3
Defendants fail to state with any specificity what part of these records may have security
concerns. Defendants can request a protective order if they wish to produce these documents in
redacted form.
6
Defendants shall produce all grievances with code ME/DE filed by the Plaintiff since September 18,
2009, through June 7, 2013, within ten (10) days of the date of this order.
In Requests Nos. 5 and 6 of the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff requested the following:
Request No. 5:
The referall of Plaintiff (Physicians transfer note or
consultation, or any other communication) to the oral surgeon
sent from Defendant Dwight McMillan to Defendant William
Akerman.
Response:
Plaintiff has a copy of his SCDC dental records. None.
(Doc. 84-1).
Request No. 6:
The consent for tooth removal from Plaintiff signed February 28,
2012, consenting to the removal of Tooth 16.
Response:
Plaintiff has a copy of his SCDC dental records. None.
(Doc. #84-1).
Defendants responded in their responses to discovery requests and responses to the Motion
to Compel that Plaintiff is in possession of his “ . . . SCDC dental records. None.” Within ten (10)
days of the date of this order, Defendants shall provide responsive documents to Requests Nos. 5
and 6 that are in their possession, control or custody. If they have no such documents in their
possession, custody or control, Defendants shall provide an affidavit reflecting such.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. # 80) is granted in part and denied in part
as set forth above. Plaintiff shall have until June 20, 2014, to file any supplemental responses to
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Motion to Compel
On April 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend Motion to Compel.” (Doc.# 110). In
7
this motion, Plaintiff states that he “brings forth this Motion to Insure that all Discovery Requests
are Produced by Defendants.” This motion is denied as it is not a proper motion under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the motion (doc. #110) is denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend the Time to Respond to Defendant McMillan’s Motion for
Summary Judgment filed January 10, 2014. (Doc. #104). Defendant McMillan filed an objection to
the motion. This motion is granted and the court notes that Plaintiff filed a response in opposition
to Defendant McMillan’s Motion for Summary Judgment on May 9, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
May 16, 2014
Florence, South Carolina
8
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?