Gates v. Black Hills Health Care Systems (BHHCS) et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Court Order Regarding Discovery. Signed by U. S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 4/17/13. (SLW)

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
DAVID A. GATES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BLACK HILLS HEALTH CARE
SYSTEMS (BHHCS), THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFF AIRS, and THE UNITED STATES,
Defendants.

*
*
*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

APR 1 7 2013

~~

CIV 11-3013-RAL

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR COURT ORDER
REGARDING DISCOVERY

Plaintiff David A. Gates filed a Motion for Court Order. Doc. 40. Gates seeks a court
order requiring production of documents by entities not party to this suit. Defendants take the
position that the documents are not relevant to the claims at issue in this case. Doc. 41. Because
the discovery Gates seeks through a court order is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery
of admissible evidence, the Motion for Court Order is denied.
Gates was irregularly discharged from an alcohol treatment program at the Veterans'
Administration (VA) domiciliary in Hot Springs, South Dakota, on February 23, 2009, for
allegedly viewing pornographic material on a V A computer. Gates filed this suit alleging
violations of his privacy and Fourth Amendment rights and alleging that accidental disclosure
of information pertaining to his irregular discharge from the V A program to unauthorized
individuals violated his right to privacy. Doc. 1. While at the V A alcohol treatment program,
Gates was a contracted Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) at the Castle Manor Nursing Home ("Castle
Manor"), which is a community-based nursing home in Hot Springs, South Dakota. Doc. 1 at
~

8. On January 20,2009, Gates lost his position at Castle Manor after allegations surfaced of

Gates engaging in inappropriate touching at that job. Doc. 1 at ~~ 14, 17, 18.
A different lawsuit, filed as CIV 12-30 II-RAL, relates to Gates' involvement in a living

skills treatment program in a VA facility in Ft. Meade, South Dakota. CIV 12-3011-RAL, Doc.
1. Gates was irregularly discharged from the living skills program on September 8, 2009, for
allegedly having a weapon and inhalants in his private sleeping area. Doc. 42-4. In that lawsuit,
Gates complains that actions taken by the VA staff were retaliatory and violated his
Constitutional rights. CIV 12-3011-RAL, Doc. 1. Gates filed a motion for joinder requesting
consolidation of his two lawsuits. CIV 11-3013-RAL, Doc. 22. This Court then consolidated
the two cases. Doc. 39.
Gates now moves for this Court to order the release of the following documents: (l)
investigations by the State of South Dakota about Gates; (2) investigations by Castle Manor
Nursing Home into allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Gates; (3) investigation by
the South Dakota Nursing Board ofJacqueline Hedlund; (4) investigation by the South Dakota
Social Workers Board of Richard Rainer; and (5) investigation by the South Dakota Social
Workers Board of Jason Chipman. Doc. 40 at 3. Although Gates does not identify these
individuals, nor explain their connection to his present lawsuit, it appears that all documents
sought relate to the investigation at Castle Manor into the allegations against Gates for
inappropriate touching. Doc. 40 at 1.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties ordinarily "may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ.
P.26(b)(I). "Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. Rule 26 vests this
Court with discretion to limit discovery if it determines the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) (authorizing the court
to ensure a party responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena takes reasonable steps

2

to avoid imposing "undue burden or expense" on a person subject to a subpoena). This Court
need not authorize discovery that is merely a "fishing expedition. II Roberts v. Shawnee Mission
Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358, 361-62 (8th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff may not use a lawsuit as a tool for
"a fishing expeditionll to seek grounds for another lawsuit. E.E.O.C. v. CRST Van Expedited,
Inc., 679 F.3d 657,675 (8th Cir. 2012).
Gates seeks this discovery because he believes that information from the Castle Manor
investigation might show that his personal medical information was disclosed by Defendants to
unauthorized individuals, and that the possible source of that alleged disclosure might be
revealed. Doc. 40 at 2. In his Complaint, Gates alleges that he was discharged from the VA
alcohol treatment program because ofthe happenings at Castle Manor, Doc. 1 at ~ 24, and that
a nurse from the VA's Black Hills Health Care System provided information to staff at Castle
Manor about his discharge from the VA, Doc. I at ~ 26. Yet, Gates' discharge from the VA
occurred on February 23,2009, more than a month after Gates lost his job at Castle Manor. At
any rate, Gates seeks to find a connection between his dismissal from Castle Manor and his
termination from the VA alcohol treatment program.
Gates' request for records is a mere "fishing expedition II to gain access to Castle Manor
records and investigations concerning events at Castle Manor. See E.E.O.C., 679 F.3d at 675.
Gates' federal cases are not against Castle Manor, however. The time line that Gates has
provided indicates that he was dismissed from Castle Manor over a month before the VA
confronted him about allegedly viewing pornography on a VA computer. This discovery sought
by Gates does not appear "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence"
because Castle Manor could not have had the records of Gates' termination from the VA at the
time that they investigated charges of Gates' inappropriate touchings and terminated Gates'
3

employment. If the VA did in fact tenninate Gates from their program because of happenings
at Castle Manor, there would be no evidence in the records at Castle Manor to indicate the
motivation for the VA's actions a month later. Similarly, any investigation perfonned by the
State of South Dakota into the allegations at Castle Manor is irrelevant to Gates' federal case.
The State would have been investigating the circumstances surrounding Gates' tennination from
employment, and not matters concerning Gates' relationship with the VA.
Gates appears to argue that the records sought might show that the computer coordinator
at the VA, who confronted Gates about the viewing ofpornography, may have disclosed medical
infonnation to a third party. Doc. 40 at 3. However, Gates has not provided any rationale as to
how any possible disclosure by the computer coordinator at the V A of records pertaining to his
tennination would have made it into records at Castle Manor, where Gates had been dismissed
a month earlier.
Because Gates' dismissal from Castle Manor is completely separate from, and predates,
his tennination from the VA alcohol treatment program and the VA living skills treatment
program, this Court will not issue an order requiring the production of documents from or
regarding Castle Manor. Gates' requested subpoena for production from Castle Manor is the
sort of "fishing expedition" that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Gates also seeks a court order for infonnation pertaining to investigations made by
outside state agency boards. Doc. 40 at 2. Gates argues that "[t]he external investigations ofthe
various State Boards will produce evidence of false infonnation reported to the SO Board and
evidence of retaliation that is not recorded in Plaintiffs [sic] Progress Notes." Gates has not
clearly identified the roles ofthe individuals who were subject to these investigations~ however,
4

the reports Gates seeks apparently were a part of the investigation at Castle Manor regarding the
allegations ofinappropriate touching by Gates. Gates has requested that Defendants produce any
copy of these investigations that they possess, and Defendants have responded that they do not
have such infonnation. This Court trusts that Defendants are not improperly withholding any
such reports. If the Defendants did not receive copies of the reports, then those reports did not
contribute to any decision of the V A to terminate Gates and are not relevant in this case.
Therefore, this Court will not order the various state boards to produce for Gates the reports he
requests.
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Court Order, Doc. 40, is denied.
Dated ApriI1?, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5