Opinion
Case No. 2:04-CV-303.
December 7, 2005
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a state inmate, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unconstitutional denial of medical care. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 34. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
As set forth in detail below, defendants are given twenty-one (21) days to respond to certain of plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff will then have twenty-one (21) days from the date he receives the discovery to respond to defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 31.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is incarcerated in Ohio at the Ross Correctional Institution ("RCI"). On April 17, 2002, plaintiff injured his ankle playing basketball. Complaint, at ¶ 13. Plaintiff claims that because the RCI doctors and medical administrative staff treated him with deliberate indifference, he suffered a deep vein thrombosis (blood clot) ("DVT") and suffered extreme physical and emotional pain. Id., at ¶¶ 13, 15.
On January 3, 2005, plaintiff served his first discovery requests upon defendants. Exhibit A, attached to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. On February 8, 2005, defendants responded to plaintiff's requests. Exhibit B. On March 9, 2005, plaintiff served upon defendants a supplemental request for production of documents and served upon two of the individual defendants, Dr. Coulter and Dr. Martin, a second set of interrogatories and requests for admissions. Exhibits D, H, K.
All exhibits referred to herein are attached to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 34.
On May 5, 2005, Dr. Coulter and Dr. Martin responded to plaintiff's second set of requests. Exhibits H, J, K. Defendants did not respond to plaintiff's supplemental document request. Plaintiff sent several letters to defendants requesting that they respond more fully to his second set of interrogatories and requests for admissions and that they respond to his supplemental document request. Exhibits C1, C3, E, F.
On July 11, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling defendants to respond to his supplemental document request and for Dr. Coulter and Dr. Martin to "re-answer certain Interrogatories and Admissions." Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, at 1; Doc. No. 34. Defendants filed Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel on July 13, 2005. Doc. No. 35. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is now ripe for review.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a discovering party to file a motion for an order compelling discovery if another party fails to respond to discovery requests, provided that the motion to compel includes a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to respond to the requests. Id. The Court is satisfied that the prerequisites to seeking a motion to compel have been met in this case.
Determining the proper scope of discovery falls within the broad discretion of the trial court. Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for discovery of documents in the "possession, custody or control" of a party, provided that the documents "constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). In addition, a "request to admit covers the full range of information discoverable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), including matters of fact as well as the application of law to the facts." Booth Oil Site Admin. Group v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 194 F.R.D. 76, 79 (W.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a) and 4A Moore's Federal Practice, 36.04(2), (4) (2d ed. 1982)). Finally, "[t]he function of interrogatories under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 is broadly the same as any other discovery method." Babcock Swine, Inc. V. Shelbco, Inc., 126 F.R.D. 43, 45 (S.D. Ohio 1989) (citing Wright Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2163).
In turn, Rule 26(b) provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Relevance for discovery purposes is extremely broad. Miller v. Fed. Express Corp., 186 F.R.D. 376, 383 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). "The scope of examination permitted under Rule 26(b) is broader than that permitted at trial. The test is whether the line of interrogation is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Mellon v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499, 500-01 (6th Cir. 1970).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asks this Court for an order compelling response by defendants to interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for documents. Doc. No. 34.
A. Plaintiff's Document Requests
In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff requests that the Court order defendants to respond to five requests for documents posed in his supplemental document request to which they have not responded and to which they have not objected. In Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, defendants do not specifically address any of the document requests that are the subject of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Instead, defendants state that "at no time were Plaintiff's discovery requests ignored." Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, at 2. Further, defendants assert that "[e]ach request was either granted or was accompanied by a letter indicating why it could not be provided." Id.
Defendants, however, did not respond or object to five requests posed by plaintiff in his supplemental document request. Plaintiff sent a letter to defendants on April 25, 2005, stating that he had not received a response to these five supplemental requests. Exhibit E. Specifically, defendants did not respond in any way to plaintiff's requests numbered 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9. Id.
On June 9, 2005, plaintiff sent another letter to defendants stating, inter alia, that he still had not received responses to these five document requests. Exhibit F. On June 13, 2005, defendants sent a letter to plaintiff in which they incorrectly stated that plaintiff had received all of the discovery that he had requested or that they did not provide the documents he requested based on a valid objection, "and, as the rules provide, gave reason for [the] objections." Exhibit I1. Thus, the Court makes the following determinations without benefit of an explanation from defendants for their non-production or their failure to object to production of the five document requests at issue here.
1. Document Request 3
In plaintiff's first document request, he asked defendants to produce: "A copy of the Medical Protocols, which is [ sic] an official guidance issued, by the ODRC Director to director to direct a medical procedure or course of action." Exhibit A3. Defendants responded to this request: "Objection. This request is overbroad. Medical protocols are specified to a particular disease or condition, not as a general overview." Exhibit B1.
In plaintiff's supplemental request for production of documents, he narrowed the scope of Request 3 to: "A copy of the Medical Protocol sections that are related to assessing injury and subsequent treatment; fractured and injured ankles; Deep Vein Thrombosis (blood clot); and medical transportation." Defendants did not respond to this request.
The Court concludes that the documents plaintiff requests are relevant to his claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). Plaintiff contends that he was treated with deliberate indifference with respect to his fractured ankle, which allegedly caused a DVT. Plaintiff also claims that he should have been transported to an outside medical facility sooner than he was. Request 3 asks for the medical protocols specific to his alleged injuries and to his transportation. This request is significantly more narrow than plaintiff's first request for all medical protocols and it appears by defendants' previous objection that they are in possession of medical protocols specified to particular conditions.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for order compelling defendants to produce the documents requested in Request 3 is GRANTED. Defendants must produce the documents in that request within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why they cannot do so.
2. Document Request 4
In his first document request, plaintiff asked defendants to produce: "A copy of the Medical Policy Manual." Exhibit A3. Defendants responded: "Medical Policies are also specific to various diseases." Exhibit B1. In plaintiff's supplemental document request, he narrowed Request 4 to: "A copy of the Medical Policy Manuel [ sic] sections related in the same way as in #3." Exhibit D3. Defendants did not respond to this request.
The Court concludes that the documents plaintiff requests are relevant for the same reason that it found the documents requested above in "Document Request 3" relevant. Thus, plaintiff's request for an order compelling defendants to produce the documents requested in Request 4 is GRANTED. Defendants must produce the documents in that request within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why they cannot do so.
3. Document Request 6
In plaintiff's first document request, he asked defendants to produce: "A copy of position descriptions of all three defendants." Exhibit A3. Defendants responded: "With these documents, which will be made available to you this week, your request for documents has been completed." Exhibit B1. In plaintiff's supplemental document request, he again asked for these documents, claiming the he never received them. Defendants did not respond to this request.
In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff contends that defendants produced to him a document that had on it "a couple of definitions." Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, at 4; Exhibits G1, G2. Plaintiff claims:
The official Position Discription [ sic] (Job Discription) [ sic] along with the keys, give detail [ sic] information about the Defendants [ sic] job requirements that the definitions do not provide. Also there were only two instead of three given. The Plaintiff is in need of those Position Discriptions [ sic] inorder [ sic] to better demonstrate their responsibilities.
Defendants do not respond to plaintiff's argument. The Court concludes that the position descriptions plaintiff requests are relevant to his claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). Plaintiff, in essence, alleges that defendants did not adequately perform their job duties. Thus, documents that describe defendants' job duties are relevant for discovery purposes to plaintiff's claims.
Consequently, plaintiff's request for an order compelling defendants to produce the documents requested in Request 6 is GRANTED. Defendants must produce the documents in that request within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why they cannot do so.
4. Document Request 7
In plaintiff's supplemental document request he asked for: "The degrees and education of each Defendant." Exhibit D3. Defendants did not respond to this request.
In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff explains that he requested these documents "to verify the qualification of each defendant." Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, at 4. Defendants do not respond to plaintiff's argument. For the same reasons expressed above in connection with Document Request 6, the Court concludes that these documents are relevant to plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Defendants to produce the documents requested in Request 7 is GRANTED. Defendants must produce the documents in that request within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why they cannot do so. 5. Document Request 9
In plaintiff's supplemental document request, he asked defendants to produce several weeks of telephone records from RCI. Exhibit D4. Defendants did not respond to this request.
In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff explains that he requested these documents because one of the individual defendants, Health Care Administrator Terry Hopkins, denies that she received calls from plaintiff's father and "these records will show that she is mistaken." Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, at 4. Plaintiff's family allegedly called to encourage the administrators and medical staff at RCI to expedite plaintiff's medical treatment.
In Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, defendants argue that Ms. Hopkins acknowledged that she spoke with plaintiff's wife and, further, that whether plaintiff's wife or father called is irrelevant. Defendants do not address whether Ms. Hopkins acknowledges that she spoke to plaintiff's father. Nevertheless, the Court concludes that plaintiff is not entitled to the telephone records that he requests.
Even if the records sought by plaintiff show that his family called the prison, plaintiff has not shown how this information would advance his claims. In addition, those records would provide no information as to the content of the telephone calls or even provide information as to the individual with whom plaintiff's family members spoke. The Court therefore concludes that the requested telephone records are not relevant to plaintiff's claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b).
Consequently, plaintiff's request for an order compelling defendants to produce the documents requested in Request 9 is DENIED.
B. Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission
In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff requests an order compelling Dr. Coulter and Dr. Martin to further answer certain interrogatories and requests for admission. Each of these defendants contend that they have answered the interrogatories and admission requests to the best of their ability.
1. Dr. Coulter
Plaintiff asks Dr. Coulter to further answer interrogatories numbered 6, 10 and 13 and requests for admission numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12 from plaintiff's second set of discovery requests to him.
a. Admission Requests 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10
Admission Requests 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 all quote from either A Guide to DVT, published by Aventis Pharmaceutical, or from Bantam Medical Dictionary. Plaintiff requests Dr. Coulter to either agree or disagree with the quotes. Dr. Coulter objected to answering the admission requests based on his lack of familiarity with the quoted sources.
The Court concludes that plaintiff's requests are not relevant to his claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). Plaintiff's familiarity with these medical publications may be beneficial to him, but plaintiff has not shown how Dr. Coulter's opinion of the quoted text advances his claims.
Consequently, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Coulter to re-answer Admission Requests 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 is DENIED. b. Admission Request 12
Admission Request 12 asks Dr. Coulter: "Admit or deny — That Terry Hopkins informed you that the Plaintiff's father and wife called her concerning his lack [of] medical placement and treatment." Exhibit H7. Dr. Coulter answered: "Objection. Previously answered."
In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff claims that Dr. Coulter did not previously answer the request. In their memorandum contra, defendants argue that Ms. Hopkins acknowledged that she spoke with plaintiff's wife and, further that whether plaintiff's wife or father called is irrelevant because Dr. Coulter had already arranged a consultation for plaintiff's ankle injury. Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, at 2. Defendants' argument is not well taken.
Whether Ms. Hopkins acknowledges speaking with plaintiff's family members does not answer the question posed. The admission request asks whether Ms. Hopkins informed Dr. Coulter that she had spoken with plaintiff's family members. Whether Ms. Hopkins, a named defendant, informed Dr. Coulter of the telephone calls is relevant for discovery purposes to plaintiff's claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b).
Consequently, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Coulter to further answer Admission Request 12 is GRANTED. Dr. Coulter must further respond to the request within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why he cannot do so.
c. Interrogatory 6
Interrogatory 6 asks Dr. Coulter why he did not move plaintiff to a medical unit after his April 17, 2005, ankle injury so that plaintiff could take a shower without further injury to his ankle. Exhibit H2. Dr. Coulter answered that he had no knowledge of the injury on April 17, 2005. Dr. Coulter explained that he became aware of plaintiff's injury on April 23, 2005, and at that time recommended that plaintiff put no weight on the ankle and use crutches.
In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff complains that Dr. Coulter did not answer the question posed. Defendants do not address plaintiff's argument.
Without benefit of defendants' position, the Court concludes that Dr. Coulter did not sufficiently answer the question posed and that the question posed is relevant to plaintiff's case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). Plaintiff must establish that Dr. Coulter's acts or omissions were sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Thus, information regarding Dr. Coulter's reasoning for not moving plaintiff to a medical unit after he first examined him is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with regard to whether Dr. Coulter's treatment was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's injury.
At this juncture, the Court makes no determination as to whether plaintiff's condition constituted a serious medical condition.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Coulter to further answer Interrogatory 6 is GRANTED. Dr. Coulter must further respond to this interrogatory within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why he cannot do so.
d. Interrogatory 10
Like Admission Requests 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 above, this interrogatory quotes from A Guide to DVT, and Dr. Coulter objected to answering based on his lack of familiarity with the publication. Unlike the above requests, however, Interrogatory 10 does not ask Dr. Coulter to simply agree or disagree with a quote from the publication. Instead, the interrogatory lists a number of risk factors quoted from A Guide to DVT and then asks, "should not the fact that the Plaintiff's medical history (a prior DVT and previously on Coumadin) and the fact that the Plaintiff had trauma to his left ankle (along with the above stated risk factors) demand the necessity that the Plaintiff be placed in a medical facility and prescribed Coumadin?"
Although the Court notes the legitimacy of Dr. Coulter's objection, i.e., that he is unfamiliar with the predicate information set forth by plaintiff, this objection does not adequately respond to the question posed to him. If Dr. Coulter has a personal basis to believe that the predicate information set forth in Interrogatory 10 is inaccurate, then he may set that forth in his answer. Otherwise, Dr. Coulter should assume that the predicate information is accurate and answer the interrogatory if he is able to do so.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Coulter to further answer Interrogatory 10 is GRANTED. Dr. Coulter must further respond to this interrogatory within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why he cannot do so.
e. Interrogatory 13
Interrogatory 13 asks Dr. Coulter to explain certain interrogatories and admission requests related to the timing of the decision to transport plaintiff to the hospital. Dr. Coulter answered that he played no part in the decision when to transport plaintiff. In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff requests that Dr. Coulter respond further to this interrogatory because he believes that his answer is inconsistent with some of Dr. Coulter's other answers to discovery requests. In Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, defendants explain the apparent contradiction.
The Court concludes that Dr. Coulter's answer to Interrogatory 13 is sufficient. Dr. Coulter answered the question directly, under oath. If plaintiff believes that there are inconsistencies in Dr. Coulter's sworn testimony, that is a matter for impeachment on motion or at trial.
Consequently, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Coulter to re-answer Interrogatory 13 is DENIED. 2. Dr. Martin
Plaintiff asks Dr. Martin to supplement his answer to interrogatories numbered 1, 2, 3, 6 and 15 and requests for admission numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 from plaintiff's second set of discovery requests.
a. Admission Requests 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12
Admission Requests 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 all quote from either A Guide to DVT, published by Aventis Pharmaceutical, or from Bantam Medical Dictionary. Exhibits K1-K8. These requests are identical to the requests plaintiff propounded to Dr. Coulter in Admission Requests 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, wherein Dr. Coulter was asked to either agree or disagree with the quotes. Dr. Martin objected to answering the admission requests for the same reasons as did Dr. Coulter, i.e., lack of familiarity with the quoted sources. For the same reasons set forth supra, relating to plaintiff's same requests to Dr. Coulter, the Court concludes that plaintiff's requests to Dr. Martin are not relevant.
Thus, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Martin to respond to Admission Requests 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 is DENIED. b. Interrogatory 1
Interrogatory 1 sets forth the conditions to which plaintiff claims he was subjected after his April 17, 2002, ankle injury, and asks Dr. Martin what his recommendations would have been concerning the situation. Dr. Martin answered: "Objection. No personal knowledge of the accuracy of the statements above." In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff argues that "Dr. Martin could qualify his answer by stating: If those above statements are true, then my recommendation would be . . ." Defendants do not address plaintiff's argument.
This interrogatory is similar to Interrogatory 10 posed to Dr. Coulter. Like the Court's discussion related to that interrogatory, supra, the Court notes the legitimacy of Dr. Martin's objection; however, Dr. Martin should set forth his personal basis for believing that the predicate information in Interrogatory 1 is inaccurate, or he should assume that the predicate information is accurate and answer the interrogatory if he is able to do so.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Martin to answer Interrogatory 1 is GRANTED. Dr. Coulter must respond to the interrogatory within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why he cannot do so.
c. Interrogatories 2 and 3
Interrogatories 2 and 3 ask for the name of the "CMC scheduler" and of any other person who was involved in scheduling plaintiff for his medical consultations and also asks the extent of each person's involvement. Dr. Martin answered each interrogatory: "Objection. No personal knowledge." In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff complains that each defendant other than Dr. Martin stated that it was the CMC Scheduler who scheduled his medical treatment dates, yet he has been unsuccessful in obtaining the individual's name. Defendants do not address plaintiff's argument.
The Court concludes that the information plaintiff requests is relevant for discovery purposes. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). Plaintiff alleges that he should have received medical treatment sooner than he did. Thus, the name of the individual who scheduled his treatment is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Mellon, 424 F.2d at 500-01. Additionally, it is defendants who have the information available to them. It is not unduly burdensome for Dr. Martin (or any other defendant) to inquire as to the name of the individual(s) who scheduled plaintiff's medical treatment. Moreover, Dr. Martin has a "duty to make every effort to obtain the requested information and if, after an adequate effort, he is unsuccessful, his answer should recite in detail the attempts which he made to acquire the information." Jackson v. Kroblin Refrigerated Xpress, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 134, 137-38 (N.D.W. Va. 1970) (citing Breeland v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 179 F. Supp. 464, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)). See also Smith v. U.S. Sprint, 19 F.3d 12, 15 (4th Cir. 1994) ("Fulfilling obligations under the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] requires much more than simply going through the motions. It requires, among other things, a true effort to fully answer interrogatories. . . .").
Consequently, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Martin to answer Interrogatories 2, 3 and 6 is GRANTED. Dr. Martin must respond to the interrogatories within twenty-one (21) days or provide a legitimate objection as to why he cannot do so.
d. Interrogatory 6
Interrogatory 6 asks whether the CMC scheduler is responsible for scheduling medical appointments for RCI inmates and whether the CMC scheduler decides which doctor the inmate will see. Dr. Martin answered that it is not the CMC scheduler who makes the appointments with a particular physician; rather, it is the provider, i.e., the Ohio State University Medical Center, that determines its own scheduling and staffing. In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, plaintiff characterizes this response as insufficient. The Court disagrees.
Thus, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Martin to further answer Interrogatory 6 is DENIED. e. Interrogatory 15
Interrogatory 15 poses the same question plaintiff posed to Dr. Coulter in Interrogatory 10 and discussed supra. For the same reasons set forth in that discussion, plaintiff's request for an order compelling Dr. Martin to further answer Interrogatory 15 is GRANTED. Dr. Martin must further respond to this interrogatory within twenty-one (21) days or must provide a legitimate objection as to why he cannot do so.
WHEREUPON, in light of the foregoing analysis, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 34, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Within twenty-one (21) days, defendants must respond to Document Requests 3, 4, 6 and 7 posed in plaintiff's supplemental document request. Additionally, within twenty-one (21) days, Dr. Coulter must respond to Interrogatories 6 and 10 and Admission Request 12 in plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and requests for admission propounded to him. Finally, within twenty-one (21) days, Dr. Martin must respond to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, and 15 in plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and requests for admission propounded to him.
Plaintiff must respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 31, within twenty-one (21) days of the date he receives the discovery ordered herein.