United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Honorable Raner C. Collins, Senior United States District
Judge
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff Cassius C. Whitehead's
Motion to Compel Discovery of ADC/Corizon Medical Records and
Production of Documents. (Doc. 103.) Defendants Corizon
Health Inc., Richard Pratt, and Charles L. Ryan (collectively
“Medical Defendants”) filed a Response (Doc.
109), and Plaintiff a Reply (Doc. 112). The Court will grant
the motion in part and deny in part.
I.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Plaintiff
wishes to obtain his medical records to develop his §
1983 claim and respond to the pending Motion for Summary
Judgment (“MSJ”). (Doc. 103 at 2-3.) Plaintiff
asks the Court to issue an order (1) requiring that Medical
Defendants provide all medical records from November 2016 to
present, (2) directing Medical Defendants to file a notice
informing the Court when the documents have been distributed,
(3) stay the time to respond to the MSJ until after the
resolution of the discovery matter, and (4) determine that
Plaintiff does not need to pay for the copies because of the
money he has already spent copying documents for this motion.
(Id. at 5.) However, in his Reply, Plaintiff
modifies the documents he seeks, and states that if Medical
Defendants simply provide “a complete copy of the
exhibits appended to Defendants' Separate Statement of
Facts this matter can proceed.” (Doc. 112 at 1.)
II.
Medical Defendants' Response
a.
Timeliness of Motion to Compel
In
response, Medical Defendants assert that Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel is untimely because that it was filed after
the MSJ (May 2, 2019) and the close of discovery (February 4,
2019). (MSJ, Doc. 109; Discovery Order, Doc. 86 at 9.)
Medical Defendants claim that they submitted their responses
to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production on December
28, 2018. (Doc. 109 at 2 (citing Doc. 103-2 at 22).)
Furthermore, Plaintiff's alleged conferral with defense
counsel occurred in January to February of 2019; therefore,
Plaintiff had ample time to raise this dispute and failed to
do so until May 31, 2019. (Doc. 109 at 3.)
The
Court will permit the filing because if Plaintiff's claim
that he cannot respond to the MSJ without these records is
taken at face value, he may not have been aware of the
significance of the documents until such motion was filed.
Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel soon after receiving the
MSJ. Moreover, the Court did not set a deadline for raising
discovery disputes.
b.
Compliance with Local Rule 37.1
Medical
Defendants also argue the Motion to Compel fails to list the
specific disputed discovery responses and what action
Plaintiff desires. (Doc. 109 at 3.) However, it is clear
enough from the Reply clearly states that Plaintiff merely
desires the exhibits attached to the MSJ's Statement of
Facts. This is sufficiently clear to comply with the Local
Rule. These timeliness and compliance determinations,
however, do not resolve the breadth of discovery.
c.
Objections to Request for Productions
i.
All Medical Records
Next,
Medical Defendants claim that the relief Plaintiff seeks -
all medical records from November 2016 to present - is far
broader than permissible given both his allegations in the
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and the requests
for production. (Doc. 109 at 3.) The FAC alleges that he
suffered eye, sinus, throat, stomach, skin, and emotional
problems after being exposed to hazardous chemicals when
working on a hazmat crew. (Doc. 26 at 12-13.) Similarly, the
Second Request for Production asks only for medical records
pertaining to his eye, nose, and throat symptoms and mental
health records regarding such symptoms. (Doc. 103-2 at 18
¶1, 19 ¶ 6.)
The
Court agrees with Medical Defendants, discovery of all
medical records since November 2016 is overly broad given the
allegations and discovery requests. However, Plaintiff's
reply limits the information needed to only the exhibits
related to the MSJ. Medical Defendants contend that Plaintiff
has already been given the attachments to the Statement of
Facts in support of Medical Defendants' MSJ.
(See Doc. 109 at 4.) But because it appears that
Plaintiff has not received the ...