Page v. Unknown Stallman
Page v. Unknown Stallman
2023 WL 11200061 (W.D. Mich. 2023)
July 31, 2023

Vermaat, Maarten,  United States Magistrate Judge

Medical Records
Dismissal
Failure to Produce
Proportionality
Download PDF
To Cite List
JOSHUA JEFFREY PAGE, #866570, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN STALLMAN, Defendant
Case No. 2:22-cv-30
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Filed July 31, 2023
Vermaat, Maarten, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

*1 This order addresses Defendant's motions to compel (ECF No. 123) and to extend the dispositive motion deadline (ECF No. 154).
Plaintiff — state prisoner Joshua Jeffrey Page — filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 8, 2022. In his complaint, Page asserted that while he was confined at the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Michigan, prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by denying him medical care for chronic leg pain. (ECF No. 1, PageID.6-8.) At this stage of the case, only Page's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Dr. Unknown Stallman remains. (ECF No. 99, PageID.678 (Report and Recommendation); ECF No. 104, PageID.692 (Order Adopting Report and Recommendation).)
On February 6, 2023, Dr. Stallman moved to compel Page to disclose his medical records. (ECF No. 123.) On February 17, 2023, before the undersigned could rule on the pending motion to compel, Dr. Stallman filed a notice that his former employer and insurance carrier, Tehum Care Services, Inc. d/b/a Corizon Health, Inc., had filed for bankruptcy. (ECF No. 132, PageID.789-790.) On March 31, 2023, Counsel for Dr. Stallman filed a motion to withdraw as counsel with respect to claims arising before September 29, 2021, and for a 120-day stay, contending that when Tehum Care Services, Inc, filed for bankruptcy, it created a conflict of interest for Counsel. (ECF No. 140, PageID.803.) On the same day, the Court denied Counsel's request to withdraw without prejudice and stayed the case for 90 days so that Dr. Stallman could obtain new counsel. (ECF No. 145, PageID.820.) On July 12, 2023, after the expiration of the 90-day stay, this Court reconsidered and granted the request to withdraw.[1] (ECF No. 150, PageID.829.) Two days later, the Court issued an order extending the discovery deadline in this case to July 25, 2023, and the dispositive motion deadline to August 11, 2023. (ECF No. 151, PageID.831.) On July 27, 2023, Dr. Stallman moved for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline until 60 days after the Court ruled on his pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 154.)
Now that the stay has been lifted, the undersigned addresses Dr. Stallman's pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 123.) The undersigned also addresses Dr. Stallman's motion for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 154.)
I. Dr. Stallman's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 123)
Dr. Stallman moves this Court to compel discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF No. 123.) Dr. Stallman says that on January 16, 2023, he sent Page a production request asking that Page sign an authorization for release of his MDOC medical records from January 1, 2020, to present. (Id., PageID.757.) Page responded with a letter, indicating that he would not sign the authorization because his medical records are “protected by federal and state law.” (ECF No. 123-2, PageID.770.) Dr. Stallman moves this Court to compel Page to sign an authorization for release of his MDOC medical records because Page “has placed his medical history and treatment as a central issue in this matter.” (ECF No. 123, PageID.757.)
*2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) sets forth the scope of discovery 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 be discoverable.
Under Rule 34, parties may serve production requests in accordance with the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). And under Rule 37, if a party fails to produce documents or permit inspection in accordance with Rule 34, the requesting party may move the Court for an order compelling production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(iv).
Page alleges in his amended complaint that he began receiving inadequate medical care in August of 2020. (ECF No. 7, PageID.40-47.) There can be no question that Page's medical records contain relevant information related to his medical treatment, or lack thereof, from 2020 on. Dr. Stallman appropriately limited his request to medical records after January 1, 2020, and the undersigned finds that he is entitled to obtain those records to defend against Page's allegations.
II. Dr. Stallman's Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline (ECF No. 154)
Dr. Stallman also asks this Court asks this Court to extend the dispositive motion deadline until 60 days after the date of this order in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). (ECF No. 154, PageID.847.) Dr. Stallman reiterates that he has yet to receive a signed authorization to release Page's medical records, and that he needs those records to defend against Page's claims. Rule 16(b)(4) provides that: “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Because the undersigned finds that there is good cause to extend the dispositive motion deadline, the undersigned grants Dr. Stallman's motion for an extension.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to compel (ECF No. 123) is GRANTED.[2] Defendant Stallman shall serve Page with a new release form for Page's medical records spanning from January 1, 2020 to present as soon as practicable. Within 14 days of receiving the release form, Page shall properly execute the release. Page is warned that failing to authorize the release of his medical records in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of this case pursuant to Rule 41(b)[3] or Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v)[4] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
*3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions (ECF No. 154) is GRANTED. The dispositive motion deadline is hereby extended to September 29, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

To reiterate, Counsel requested and was permitted to withdraw with respect to claims arising before September 29, 2021. Per this Court's order, Counsel will continue to represent Defendant Stallman for claims arising after September 29, 2021. (ECF No. 150, PageID.830.)
The undersigned acknowledges that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) provides that if the Court grants a motion to compel, it must “require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). But Rule 37(a)(5)(A) further provides that the Court “must not order this payment if ... circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. Here, the undersigned finds that Page's status as a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis makes an award of expenses unjust. See Souleymanly v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 20-13276, 2022 WL 7074270, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2022); Fields v. Trinity Food Serv., No. 117-cv-01190, 2022 WL 193735, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 20, 2022). But Page is warned that further noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or with this Court's orders and deadlines may result in sanctions, including dismissal of his case.
Rule 41(b) provides that: “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It is well settled that the Court has inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte under this rule. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962).
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) provides that “[i]f a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include ... dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v).