Adell, Mark v. Boughton, Gary et al
Filing
83
ORDER that Defendant Sandra McArdle's motion to compel (dkt. 52 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Mark Anthony Adell is ordered and compelled by this court to sign and return the medical authorizations previously requested by defendant McArdle on or bef ore April 23, 2020.Plaintiff March Anthony Adell's motions to stay or dismiss this case without prejudice (dkt. 82 ) are DENIED. The court will, however, grant Adell two additional weeks to respond to defendants' summary judgment materials. His new deadline is May 1, 2020; defendants' reply deadline is extended to May 11, 2020. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/13/2020. (rks),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARK ANTHONY ADELL,
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
17-cv-877-wmc
GARY BOUGHTON, et al.,
Defendants.
In this case, pro se prisoner Mark Anthony Adell has been permitted to proceed on
claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. (See
Screening Order dkt. #8.) Before the court are two motions: (1) defendant Sandra
McArdle’s motion to compel (dkt. #52); and (2) plaintiff Adell’s motion to stay
proceedings or, in the alternative, dismiss the case without prejudice (dkt. #82). The court
addresses both motions below.
OPINION
I. Motion to Compel
Defendant Sandra McArdle seeks an order from this court requiring plaintiff Adell
to provide signed, unredacted medical records authorizations to give McArdle access
Adell’s relevant medical records. (McArdle Br. (dkt. #53) 2.) In support, McArdle has
produced evidence that she already sent Adell a request to sign and return two medical
disclosure consent forms. (Swinick Decl. (dkt. #54) ¶ 4.) While Adell did sign and return
the forms, he redacted portions of them, removing any mention of medical records related
to, among other things, mental health, drug, and alcohol abuse. (Id. ¶ 5.) Through counsel,
McArdle then sent another letter to Adell requesting his signatures without redactions, and
when he did not respond, counsel sent yet another letter request, both to no avail. (Id. ¶¶
6-7.)
Because Adell “placed his mental health at issue by alleging that defendants relied
on a “’erroneous and damaging medical report’ that he had ‘[a] severe personality disorder
and oftentimes elects not to communicate or answer any questions stating the answer
should be found within the paper records that are brought by the guards,’” McArdle argues
that this court should compel Adell to sign the medical record authorizations pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). (McArdle Br. (dkt. #53) 1 (quoting Compl. (dkt.
#23) ¶¶ 81-85).) As additional grounds for an order compelling production, she further
notes that Adell “placed drug and/or alcohol abuse at issue by alleging that McArdle placed
his medication under staff control ‘not due to abuse concerns -- but after being asked by
an HSU staff to teach plaintiff a lesson about complaining about tardy refill requests.
Plaintiff has absolutely no record of abusing medications.’” (Id. at 1-2 (quoting Compl.
(dkt. #23) ¶ 57).) In both respects, McArdle argues that Adell waived any interest in
protecting the confidentiality of his medical records by placing his medical condition at
issue. (Id. at 3.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), a party seeking discovery may move
for an order compelling production if (1) a party fails to produce relevant, discoverable
documents and (2) the movant certifies that he has in “good faith conferred or attempted
to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to
obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). At the outset, Adell’s medical records
2
related to his mental health, drug, and alcohol abuse are relevant and discoverable, as Adell
has himself placed them into issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .”). Moreover, Adell has waived any privacy
rights to the records by filing this lawsuit. See Watts v. Westfield, No. 10-cv-550-wmc, 2013
WL 5794793 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 28, 2013) (“[A] plaintiff waives any privilege that he may
have had when he puts his medical condition in issue by filing a lawsuit.”). Finally,
defendants have shown that they have in “good faith” conferred with Adell in an effort to
obtain the records without court action. (See Swinick Decl. (dkt. #54).) Accordingly,
McArdle is entitled to a court order compelling Adell to sign the unredacted medical
authorizations previously sent to Adell. Should Adell fail to do so within the next ten (10)
days, his lawsuit will likely be dismissed with prejudice.
II. Motions to Stay or Dismiss Without Prejudice
Also pending before the court is Adell’s own motion to stay the proceedings or, in
the alternative, dismiss the case without prejudice. (Dkt. #82.) For the reasons discussed
below, the court must deny both motions, but will grant Adell two additional weeks to
respond to defendants’ summary judgment motions.
On February 14, 2020, defendants in this case moved for summary judgment (dkts.
#62, 65), to which Adell was given until March 16, 2020, to respond. Adell subsequently
filed a motion requesting a 90-day extension (dkt. #78), which the court granted in part,
giving him until April 17, 2020, to submit his opposition materials (dkt. #79). Less than
two weeks later, Adell asked the court to reconsider its order and repeated his request for
3
a 90-day extension. (Dkt. #80.) The court denied this motion, finding that Adell had
presented no new reasons for the court to further extend his deadline and noting that he
still had well over a month to prepare his response. (Dkt. #81.)
Adell has now asked the court to stay the proceeding or, in the alternative, dismiss
the case without prejudice (dkt. #82), because he has other cases pending with overlapping
deadlines, and his health conditions -- including “heart failure” and limited, cognitive
stamina due to a recent stroke -- prevents him from responding to defendants’ motions in
this case within the timeframe set by the court. (Id.)
Whatever merit there may be in his claimed health condition, which if true are likely
compounded by the risks of contracting COVID-19, neither form of relief requested by
Adell is appropriate. First, Adell seeks voluntary dismissal without prejudice which, under
the circumstances, must be by court order “on terms that the court considers proper.” See
Fed. Rules of Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2). Whether or not to grant such a motion is within the
discretion of the court. Pace v. S. Exp. Co., 409 F.2d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1969). Moreover,
among the factors that may justify a denial of such a motion are “the fact that a motion
for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant” and “insufficient explanation for
the need to take a dismissal.” Id. Here, defendants have already moved for summary
judgment and plaintiff has already been given ample time to respond to defendants’
motions -- including a 30-day extension and yet another extension being granted by this
order -- the court is not persuaded by plaintiff’s assertions that he does not have sufficient
time to prepare at least a basic response, particularly when he is in the best position to
present any facts countering defendants’ claimed basis for summary judgment.
4
Second, Adell alternatively seeks to stay the case indefinitely. A party seeking a
stay must “make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.”
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). Again, Adell has not shown under these
standards that a stay is warranted. The court previously explained that Adell’s case “is
mainly about how the defendants handled plaintiff's prescriptions, which is more factdependent than dependent on medical information or legal issues.” Even recognizing the
hardship that may be imposed by Adell’s health problems or his obligations as to other
lawsuits, the fact that he has been able to submit three motions with this court since
defendants’ summary judgment motions have been filed (see dkts. #78, 80, 82)
demonstrate that he is capable of competently prosecuting this case within the reasonable
timeframe set by the court.
Nevertheless, Adell will be granted an additional two weeks to respond to
defendants’ summary judgment motions. His new, final deadline is now May 1, 2020,
with defendants’ reply extended to May 11, 2020.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Defendant Sandra McArdle’s motion to compel (dkt. #52) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Mark Anthony Adell is ordered and compelled by this court to sign
and return the medical authorizations previously requested by defendant
McArdle on or before April 23, 2020.
2) Plaintiff March Anthony Adell’s motions to stay or dismiss this case without
prejudice (dkt. #82) are DENIED. The court will, however, grant Adell two
additional weeks to respond to defendants’ summary judgment materials. His
new deadline is May 1, 2020; defendants’ reply deadline is extended to May
11, 2020.
5
3) Failure to comply with either deadline will result in an order to show cause
why plaintiff’s lawsuit should not be dismissed with prejudice.
Entered this 13th day of April, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
6
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?