United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, John Caldwell, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that Defendants Iko, Floss, York, and Kelley failed to provide him with constitutionally inadequate medical care. Plaintiff has four Motions asking the Court to compel each of the Defendants to further answer his discovery requests. The Court will address each Motion separately.
I. Motion to Compel Defendant Iko
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was in the Varner Unit in May of 2013, Defendant Dr. Iko canceled his fifteen-year prescription for orthopedic shoes and arthritis medication.
A. Interrogatories 11 & 15
In Interrogatory 11, Plaintiff asked Defendant Iko "what motivated you to cancel all established medical care for fifteen (15) years of chronic care case history, concerning Plaintiff John Caldwell." Doc. 71-1 at 5. Similarly, in Interrogatory 15, Plaintiff asked Defendant Iko to identify "any rule, regulation, publication, directive, or other source" that she used when reaching her decision. Id . at 6. Defendant Iko correctly objected to those discovery requests as being over broad, argumentative, and assuming facts not in evidence. Although the interrogatories were improperly worded, Plaintiff is entitled to know why Defendants Iko made her May 2013 decision.
Thus, the Motion to Compel is granted, as modified, as to Interrogatories 11 & 15. Defendant Iko must file, within fourteen days of the entry of this Order, a Supplemental Response explaining: (1) why she decided, in May of 2013, to cancel Plaintiff's prescription for orthopedic shoes and arthritis medication; and (2) whether she relied on any ADC directives of policies when making that decision.
B. Interrogatory 13
In Interrogatory 13, Plaintiff asked Defendant Iko how many other patients she canceled orthopedic footwear for in 2013. Id . at 6. The issue in this case is whether Defendant Iko provided adequate medical care to Plaintiff. Information about medical care Defendant Iko provided to other patients is irrelevant to that issue. Thus, the Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory 13.
C. Interrogatory 17
In Interrogatory 17, Plaintiff asked Dr. Iko to list any civil actions that have been filed against her. Id . at 7. That interrogatory improperly seeks information that is irrelevant to the specific inadequate medical care claim Plaintiff has raised against Defendant Iko in this lawsuit. Thus, the Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory 17.
II. Motion to Compel Defendant Deborah York
Defendant York is the Infirmary Manager at the Varner Unit. Plaintiff alleges that, in May of 2013, she denied him adequate medical care when she approved Defendant Iko's decision to cancel his ...