*1 This order addresses Plaintiff state prisoner Keith Edward Gardiner's motion for the Court to take judicial notice of a criminal charge against Defendant nurse Bedient (ECF No. 102) and his motion for clarification of the number of discovery requests allowed and to compel answers to discovery from Defendants (ECF No. 100).

Gardiner alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him proper medical care for his knee after it locked up on him in 2020. Gardiner attached to his motion Defendants’ objections to his request for production of documents. (ECF No. 100-3.)

Gardiner has the difficult burden of establishing that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 102, 104-05 (1976). Deliberate indifference “entails something more than mere negligence,” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994), but can be “satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Id. Under Farmer, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. But negligence does not equate to deliberate indifference. The Sixth Circuit distinguishes “between cases where the complaint alleges a complete denial of medical care and those cases where the claim is that a prisoner received inadequate medical treatment.” Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n.5 (6th Cir. 1976). If “a prisoner has received some medical attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law.” Id. Gardiner believes that how Defendants cared for other prisoners might be relevant to whether he was treated in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Gardiner moves to compel more complete answers to his requests for documents concerning complaints or grievances from other prisoners who were treated by Defendants. Gardiner also requests documents regarding disciplinary actions against Defendants involving the failure to provide medical care to other inmates, and he makes a request for documents relating to the death of another inmate. Gardiner asks for clarification regarding the number of discovery requests he can make, including subparts, and he appears to want a free copy of his MDOC medical records.

The medical care that other prisoners received at the prison is not relevant to this lawsuit. Grievances or complaints filed by other prisoners are not relevant to Gardiner's lawsuit regarding the treatment of his knee. Allegations made by other prisoners in complaints or grievances cannot provide Gardiner with relevant admissible evidence and cannot lead to the discovery of other relevant admissible evidence. The Court recognizes that Gardiner's request for these documents is likely based on an intent to show that Defendants engaged in a pattern of similar behavior. However, statements by other prisoners in grievance documents or in complaints constitute hearsay and would be inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 801 (defining hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement). Furthermore, even if Gardiner overcame the hearsay issue, he could not offer evidence of Defendants’ other acts to show that they acted similarly in his case. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1); United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548, 552–53 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “a court may admit evidence of a defendant's ‘other’ or ‘similar’ bad acts or crimes only if the evidence is probative of a relevant fact, and not to show the defendant's ‘character’ or ‘propensity’ to commit bad acts”). Finally, the Court recognizes that a review of MDOC grievance records might reveal information that could be used to impeach a Defendant at trial. But Gardiner has not suggested that purpose and has not given any indication that impeachment materials might be found. Thus, the Court is not willing to authorize a fishing expedition into MDOC grievance records and past lawsuits to find impeachment materials.[1]

*2 Gardiner further requests Defendants’ records of disciplinary action taken for lack of medical care to a prisoner. Defendants respond by stating that no Defendant was disciplined in relation to the care provided to Gardiner. (ECF No. 101, PageID.548.) Defendants Bergh and Wright indicate that no disciplinary records exist for them. As Gardiner knows, Defendant Bedient has disciplinary records relating to the death of an inmate.[2] The matter was investigated by the MDOC, the Michigan State Police, and the Michigan Attorney General's Office.[3] Importantly, Gardiner has not shown how Defendant Bedient's disciplinary record involving the death of a prisoner is relevant to the treatment that he received for his knee or how unrelated disciplinary records could be admissible as evidence in this case. Again, at best, Gardiner could potentially use this information to impeach Defendant Bedient during trial. Once again, Gardiner has not suggested that purpose and he has not shown that he has any need for disciplinary records from Defendants’ MDOC employment records.

Next, Gardiner requests that the Court take judicial notice of a criminal charge for involuntary manslaughter against Defendant nurse Bedient.[4] The charge related to the death of an inmate.

The charge is unrelated to Gardiner or any allegation he makes in this complaint. Gardiner has failed to show why an unrelated criminal charge against a Defendant is relevant to the facts of his case or how the charge may be admissible in this lawsuit. Moreover, as stated above the charge was dismissed.

Gardiner asks the Court for clarification regarding the number of requests for admission that the Case Management Order at ECF No. 65 allowed. Gardiner wants to know if subparts count as a separate request. The simple answer is yes.[5] Gardiner was limited to ten requests for admission from each Defendant and that number includes subparts.

Finally, to the extent that Gardiner is attempting to obtain a free copy of his medical records by bypassing the MDOC procedure that allows a prisoner to request and pay for copies of their own medical documents[6], that request is denied.

Gardiner's motions (ECF Nos. 100 and 102) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED