United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Christopher Eugene
De Rossitte pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the
Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 130).
Defendants have filed a Response in opposition to the motion.
(ECF No. 140). The Court finds the matter ripe for
filed this lawsuit on May 4, 2017, asserting a 1983 claim for
denial of medical care. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Correct
Care Solutions, Inc. (“CCS”), Dr. Nanette Vowell,
and Nurse Melissa L. Gifford. have denied him medical care
for over three years. Specifically, he claims:
The Plaintiff, for over two and half years, has and continues
to suffer from a frequently debilitating and always painful
condition (likely a bacterial infection, MRSA). Symptoms
include many NEVER addressed by ANY CCS staff person despite
dozens and dozens of sick calls, requests and grievances:
constant pain in tissues of face and head; frequent, usually
daily headaches, mild to severe; excessive thirst; difficulty
swallowing; recurrent boils and bumps on face; recurrent
swelling of eyelids; earaches; muscle weakness and pain,
shortness of breath, persistent and recurrent rashes; urine
irregularities; poor blood work labs; bouts of nausea. And
also includes a few INEFFECTIVELY addressed symptoms;
constant eye pain and irritation; build-up of irritants under
eyelids resulting in sleep deprivation; blurred, cloudy and
dimmed vision; constant sinus trouble; recurring cough;
recurring sore throat; edema on arms. Possible long-term
health issues and permanent vision damage may already have
(ECF No. 14, pp. 4, 8). Plaintiff is suing Defendants in both
their personal and official capacities.
5, 2018, Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Compel (ECF No.
74) which was granted by the Court (ECF No. 80), and
subsequently appealed by Defendants (ECF No. 90). On,
November 9, 2018, the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United
States District Judge, affirmed the Court's decision
granting Plaintiff's first Motion to Compel. (ECF No.
122). As a result, Defendants were ordered to produce the
following information to Plaintiff:
1) The names and addresses of potential witnesses Defendants
intend to call at trial and a short description of the nature
of their testimony.
2) Internal responses or other documents related to the
Plaintiff's August 2016 letter to CCS.
3) The full text of ADC HSP 800.00.
4) All eOmis medical records and documents and other
electronic documents concerning the Plaintiff from November
1, 2013 until the present.
5) Internal and external communication concerning
Plaintiff's medical care from November 1, 2013 until the
6) Blood lab reports from November 1, 2013 until the present.
7) ADC Health Services Request Forms relating to Plaintiff
from November 1, 2013 until the present.
8) ADC Request Forms marked “medical” from
November 1, 2013 until the present relating to Plaintiff.
9) The contact address for and medical documents generated by
Dr. Kristin Law regarding her December 16, 2016 examination
10) The contact address for and medical documents generated
by Dr. Thomas Moseley regarding his January 27, 2017
examination of the Plaintiff.
11) List of state or federal sanctions, fines, criminal
charges or other court imposed settlements or injunctions
against or involving CCS over the last 3 years which are
based on similar allegations made by Plaintiff in the prison
setting for denial of medical care.
12) List of complaints filed against Defendant Vowell with
the State of Arkansas Physician's Board over the last 3
years which are based on similar allegations made by
Plaintiff in the prison setting for denial of medical care.
13) Copy of any record or document in which Defendant Vowell
curtails or discontinues any treatment or medication for the
Plaintiff between November 1, 2013 until the present.
14) Any document generated or added to by Defendant Vowell
suggesting the Plaintiff is delusional, a malingerer or a
hypochondriac or any discussion of his mental health between
November 1, 2013 until the present.
15) Physician notes, electronic or otherwise, concerning the
Plaintiff between November 1, 2013 until the present.
16) List of complaints filed against Defendant Gifford with
the State of Arkansas Nursing board over the last 3 years
which are based on similar allegations made by Plaintiff in
the prison setting for denial of medical care.
17) Any document generated or added to by Defendant Vowell
[Gifford] suggesting the Plaintiff is delusional, a
malingerer or a hypochondriac or any discussion of the
Plaintiff's mental health.
(ECF No. 80, pp. 5-6).
January 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions (ECF
No. 127) claiming Defendants failed to produce all the
medical records ordered by the Court and asserting Defendants
altered some of the records they did produce. Plaintiff also
claimed Defendants failed to produce emails from Defendants
Vowell and Gifford. Id. On February 26, 2019, the
Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions finding
Defendants had produced all the documents previously ordered
by the Court that were in their possession and found
Defendants did not alter any documents. (ECF No. 144). The
Court also noted that on July 24, 2018, Defendants sent
Plaintiff 1, 781 pages of Bates-numbered medical records to
Plaintiff. On August 6, 2018, Defendants sent Plaintiff an
additional 79 Bates-numbered pages of records which included
additional medical records and other documents. As recently
as January 31, 2019, Defendants sent Plaintiff 405
Bates-numbered pages of mental health records. (ECF No. 134,
same day Plaintiff filed his Motion for Sanctions, he filed
the instant Motion to Compel (ECF No. 130) seeking what
appears to the Court to be some of the same documents already
produced by Defendants. Plaintiff also asks the Court to
compel production of information not addressed in any of the
Court's previous orders.
scope of discovery in a civil case is governed by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which provides in part:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: 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, considering the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or
extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by
local rule if it determines that:
(i) The discovery sought is unreasonable, cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to
obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) The proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted
by Rule 26(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Further, under rule 26(c),
“[t]he Court may, for good cause, issue an order to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
burden is generally on the party resisting discovery to show
why discovery should be limited. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v.
Fine Home Managers, Inc., 2010 WL 2990118, at *1 (E.D.
Mo. July 27, 2010). In carrying this burden, the objecting
party cannot rely on mere statements and conclusions but must
specifically show how the objected-to disclosures would be
irrelevant or overly burdensome, overly broad, or oppressive.