Gaither v. United States of America

Filing 59

ORDER denying 37 Motion for Discovery; denying 41 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena; denying 41 Motion for Hearing; denying 44 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 32 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena. Defendant's request that the court stay discovery pending a ruling on its Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. See ECF No. 45 at 4. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 8/26/2013.(mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nathaniel L. Gaither,

Plaintiff,
v.

United States of America,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.

5:13-cv-00108-CMC-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to the Federal
Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”).1

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

Institution in Estill, S.C. (“FCI-Estill”). This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Issuance of Subpoena, ECF No. 32; Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 37; Motion for Issuance of
Subpoena, Motion for Emergency Administrative Hearing, ECF No. 41; and Motion for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 44. Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to
the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.
Motion for Issuance of Subpoena, ECF No. 32; Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 37; Motion
for Issuance of Subpoena, Motion for Emergency Administrative Hearing, ECF No. 41
In his Motion for Issuance of Subpoena, (construed as a Motion for Discovery), filed on
June 19, 2013, and Motion for Discovery filed on July 10, 2013, Plaintiff requests that the court
order Defendant to permit Plaintiff to inspect the electronic data, computer servers, and other
electronically stored devices where Plaintiff’s medical records are kept. ECF No. 32 at 1, ECF

1

28 U.S.C. § 1346 and 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.

No. 37 at 11-12. Plaintiff contends that Defendant has fraudulently altered his medical records
and he needs access to this information to “inspect the authenticity of the medical records.” ECF
No. 32 at 1. Plaintiff also asks that the court order Defendant to produce the work schedules that
coincide with the metadata and submit depositions under oath “as to the outcome of the
investigation, and their particular participation in the fraudulent creation of such records.” Id. at
1-2. In a second subpoena request, filed July 22, 2013, Plaintiff requests that the court order
Defendant to answer questions related to whether any disciplinary action has been taken against
Estill Federal Prison Camp employees related to Plaintiff’s pending lawsuit. ECF No. 41 at 1.
Plaintiff also “moves for an emergency administrative hearing by this court . . . so that the facts
of all claims by PLAINTIFF may be immediately proven, and that DEFENDANT either be
forced to trial, or submit to summary judgment on the form of mitigation.” Id. at 2.
In response to a July 17, 2013 court Order, Defendant filed a memorandum opposing
Plaintiff’s June 19, 2013 Motion for Subpoena. ECF No. 45. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s
requests are irrelevant to the claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit and that Plaintiff has not offered any
proof to support his claims that his medical records have been falsified. ECF No. 45 at 2.
Defendant further argues that the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) policy provides that “inmates may
not have access to any computer that is operationally critical or contains SENSITIVE
information such as medical records, not have access to workstations that are attached to
BOPNet, SENTRY, or the Internet.” Id. at 3. Therefore, Defendant contends that Plaintiff
cannot have access to a hard drive or server where other inmates’ medical records are stored. Id.
Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s requests to depose parties should be denied as the
United States is the only Defendant in his case. Id. Defendant also opposes Plaintiff’s July 22,
2013 subpoena request arguing that Plaintiff’s request is “overly broad and is not reasonably

tailored to lead to relevant, admissible evidence.” ECF No. 45 at 3. Defendant argues that the
production of personnel records would constitute an invasion of privacy of staff members or
contractors. Id. Defendant also asks that the court reconsider staying discovery in this matter as
Defendant has filed a dispositive motion and Plaintiff has responded to the same. Id. Defendant
argues that “[d]iscovery is not necessary to resolve the claims as presented by [Plaintiff].” Id.
In reply, Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s use of the BOP program statement. ECF No. 52
at 1. Plaintiff argues the production of the electronic data is relevant to his case as it “is the key
factor in determining . . . fraud.” Id. In response to the argument that under BOP policy Plaintiff
cannot be allowed access to computers that contain sensitive material, Plaintiff argues that he is
seeking his medical records, not the records of other inmates, and that “multiple inmates
selective inmates regularly use the computer systems at [the FCI-Estill] facility.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff also addresses his request for depositions by arguing that Defendant “on their own
criminal merits will show themselves to be in contempt,” and that FCI-Estill employees and
other persons not employed by FCI-Estill have “detailed and verifiable information regarding the
fraud committed to support any and ALL claims made by PLAINTIFF.” Id.
The court has reviewed Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and finds
that Defendant’s objections regarding security concerns are well-founded. The court further
finds that Defendant’s relevancy objections are valid in that the information Plaintiff seeks in his
requests is not likely to provide information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff has not
offered any proof that supports his assertion that his medical records have been falsified, and
therefore, he is not entitled to discovery on that issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Issuance of Subpoena (construed as a Motion for Discovery), ECF No. 32; Motion for
Discovery, ECF No. 37; and Motion for Issuance of Subpoena, ECF No. 45, are DENIED. For

the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Emergency Administrative Hearing, ECF No. 45,
is also DENIED. Because Plaintiff has only sought discovery related to his purported false
medical records, and the court finds that he is not entitled to such discovery, Defendant’s request
that the court stay discovery pending a ruling on its Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. See ECF
No. 45 at 4.
Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 44
Plaintiff asks that the court reconsider its July 17, 2013 Order, ECF No. 38, in which the
court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff alleges that “[i]t has come
to the attention of PLAINTIFF and multiple inmates and staff that in fact P.A. Garcia, a named
defendant in this action, has either [been] terminated, or suspended without pay. If in fact this is
truthful, then in fact DEFENDANT certainly has much to hide.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff argues that his
claim of Defendant’s fraud regarding Plaintiff’s medical records is undisputed and “sanctions are
necessary as fraud has been committed on the court.” Id. at 2-3.

The court has reviewed

Plaintiff’s arguments in support of his Motion to Reconsider and finds that these arguments do
not warrant any adjustment to the court’s prior ruling. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to
support his allegations that Defendant fraudulently altered his medical records. Additionally,
Plaintiff has not explained why an alleged disciplinary action against P.A. Garcia, who is not a
defendant in this case, is relevant to his fraud claim. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF
No. 44, is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 26, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge