Cordova v. Herrera et al
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 46 Motion for Reconsideration.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
PRUDENCIO CORDOVA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MAXIMILLANO J HERRERA, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. C-11-268
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff has filed a motion titled “Plaintiff’s Appeal to Compell [sic] Discovery”
(D.E. 46), which the Clerk has docketed as a motion for reconsideration of this court’s
order denying without prejudice his motion to compel (D.E. 44). Plaintiff failed to make
it clear in his motion that he was asking for review by a District Judge; therefore the
motion will be considered as a motion directed to undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge to reconsider its earlier order.
It appears that plaintiff is actually requesting reconsideration of an order entered
on February 22, 2012 (D.E. 42), denying that defendant be compelled to produce medical
records dating back to 2001 (D.E. 46). Counsel for defendant stated that he had produced
medical records dating back to one year before the incident that formed the basis for
plaintiff’s claim and six months afterward (D.E. 41). The request for ten additional years
of records was denied without prejudice unless plaintiff could demonstrate the relevance
of the records (D.E. 42). Plaintiff now states that he needs the records dating back to
2001when he arrived at the McConnell Unit because he has the right to present
1/2
“historical” facts with regard to his medical condition (D.E. 46). According to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. FED. R. CIV. P.
26(b)(1). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that ten years worth of medical records are
relevant to the issue of qualified immunity, which examines only whether Dr. Herrera
was aware of, and deliberately indifferent to, plaintiff’s serious medical needs at the time
plaintiff was injured in a fall from his top bunk. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 291
(5th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to
compel (D.E. 46) is denied without prejudice.
If plaintiff’s claims survive summary judgment and his case is scheduled for trial,
plaintiff may request that the records be produced for trial.
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF:
If plaintiff believes that any part of this ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law, he may request review by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff
should make it clear in his request that he is seeking review by the District Judge, and
must file his request for review within fourteen days of receipt of a copy of this order.
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2012.
___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2/2
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?