Morgan v. TDCJ McConnell Unit
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 44 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(amireles, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DARRON MORGAN,
TDCJ-CID #1582430,
VS.
MAXIMILIANO HERRERA, ET AL.
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 2:11cv124
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Pending is plaintiff’s second motion to compel discovery. (D.E. 44). Defendants
have filed a response in opposition (D.E. 45, 46), to which plaintiff has filed a reply. (D.E.
48). For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion to compel (D.E. 44), is denied.
I.
Procedural Background.
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal
Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”), and is currently incarcerated at the McConnell Unit in
Beeville, Texas. He properly filed his original complaint on May 27, 2011, alleging that
certain medical providers working at the McConnell Unit were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs when, for over eight months, they failed to diagnose or treat properly
a painful and reoccurring skin condition that was eventually determined to be Scabies. (See
D.E. 11).
A Spears1 hearing was conducted on July 14, 2011, following which plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims against Dr. Maximiliano Herrera and Practice Manager William Burgin
1
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
were retained, and service ordered on these defendants. (See D.E. 14 - 16, 17). On
September 16, 2011, defendants filed their answer. (D.E. 28).
On September 29, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for production of documents. (D.E.
31). The motion was struck (D.E. 33) because discovery is not filed with the Court. (See
L.R. 5.5).
On October 26, 2011, plaintiff filed his first motion to compel discovery (D.E. 37),
to which defendants filed a response. (D.E. 39). On November 3, 2011, plaintiff’s motion
to compel was denied without prejudice. (D.E. 40).
On November 4, 2011, defendants’ counsel received from plaintiff two sets of
interrogatories, one addressed to Dr. Herrera, and the other addressed to Mr. Burgin, and a
second request for production. (See D.E. 46, ¶ 1).
On December 7, 2011, plaintiff filed a letter with the Court pointing out that
defendants had failed to respond to the interrogatories or the second request for production.
(D.E. 42). On December 13, 2011, defendants filed a notice of supplemental disclosure
indicating they had disclosed all “relevant documents and information.” (D.E. 43).
On December 16, 2011, plaintiff filed his second motion to compel (D.E. 44), and on
December 21, 2011, defendants filed a response in opposition. (D.E. 45, 46).
On January 3, 2012, plaintiff filed a reply concerning the second motion to compel.
(D.E. 48).
On January 20, 2012, defendants filed under seal a motion for summary judgment.
(D.E. 52).
2
II.
Instant Motion to Compel.
In his motion to compel (D.E. 44), plaintiff states that defendants have failed to
produce “all medical related information, analysis including, but not limited to the side
effects of the medication double antibiotic ointment; ... any and all electronically stored
research and analysis of the medication double antibiotic ointment when used internally; and
...any and all medical related information, analysis pertaining to Kenalog injections risk, side
effects, etc.” (D.E. 44 at 1).
Defendants maintain that they have provided all medical information available
concerning the double antibiotic ointment, as well as the Kenalog injections.
III.
Discussion.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure detail the manner in which discovery is to be
conducted in this action. See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 - 37. In the Fifth Circuit, it is
well-established that discovery is not to be used as a fishing expedition. See Leatherman v.
Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d 1388, 1396 (5th Cir.
1994).
A.
Double antibiotic ointment.
Defendants have provided to plaintiff the warnings and side-effects associated with
the ointment. (See D.E. 46, Ex. A). However, defendants state that they are unable to
determine what brand of the ointment was provided to plaintiff. Counsel for defendants
states that he contacted the Department of Legal Affairs for the University of Texas Medical
Branch (“UTMB)” concerning the exact brand and was advised that the UTMB’s pharmacy
3
stocks a number of different brands of the ointment at any point in time. (D.E. 46 at ¶ 3).
Defendants’ counsel obtained the medical insert for a double antibiotic ointment currently
in stock at UTMB Pharmacy, identified as “Bacitracin Zinc and Polymyxin B Sulfate
Ointment,” and sent this to plaintiff. (Id., Ex. C). Plaintiff states that “Bacitracin Zinc and
Polymyxin B Sulfate Ointment” was not the double antibiotic prescribed to him. (D.E. 48).
It is not known whether or not all double antibiotic ointments contain the two same
antibiotics and in the same ratios. If all medications classified as “double antibiotic
ointments” do contain the same medicines in the same dosages, then whether plaintiff
received Brand A or Brand B is of no concern because he does not claim that defendants
intentionally chose a cheaper brand of ointment or a generic brand over label. However, if
there are many different combinations of antibiotics characterized as double antibiotic
ointments, and defendants are unable to determine what antibiotics were in the ointment
given to plaintiff, plaintiff may use this fact in defending against summary judgment or at
trial. However, defendants cannot be compelled to produce information that is not available
to them.
Similarly, if the ointment is prescribed to be used topically, defendants’ response that
there is no information or studies concerning the effects of the ointment if taken internally
appears reasonable. Again, however, if plaintiff contends that he was instructed to use the
medication in a manner different then its intended use, he may argue this point.
4
Concerning the Kenalog injections, defendants produced to plaintiff copies of the
warnings and side-effects for Kenalog-10 and Kenalog-40. (Id., Ex. B). This response is
appropriate to plaintiff’s discovery request.
IV.
Conclusion.
Defendants have adequately responded to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s instant motion to compel (D.E. 44) is denied.
ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2012.
____________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
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?