United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court are a Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion to
Stay Proceedingsfiled by pro se Plaintiff,
Leonardo Cushenberry (“Plaintiff”). The Motion to
Compel is opposed.In Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, he
contends that, though the Defendants responded, they have not
sufficiently answered the discovery requests propounded in R.
Doc. 96. Plaintiff's sole remaining claim is that Jamie
Cashio and Amanda Cowan (“Defendants”) denied
Plaintiff medical treatment on April 18, 2017 when Defendants
allegedly left Plaintiff lying on the floor of his cell after
he had fallen and requested medical treatment.
Plaintiff complains of the following alleged deficiencies in
the responses. In item number one,  Plaintiff asked the
Defendants to state the duties of emergency responders and
requested production of any documents that set out those
duties. Defendants answered the interrogatory but did not
produce any documents. Plaintiff contends the failure to
produce any documents was intentional and that these
documents are necessary “to understand and prove the
responsibilities of defendants in medical
situations.” Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
were the emergency responders who responded to
Plaintiff's fall, their duties may be relevant.
Accordingly, Defendants shall produce any document(s)
describing the duties of emergency responders in response to
Plaintiff's first request in R. Doc. 96. If no such
documents exist or if the documents are being withheld based
on privilege, Defendants should so state and provide a
privilege log, if necessary.
in item number two, Plaintiff requested information regarding
Defendants' qualifications for their jobs as emergency
responders and supporting documentation. Defendants stated
their qualifications but failed to provide any documentation.
Because Defendants qualifications are relevant to
Plaintiff's claims, Defendants shall produce any
documents related to their qualifications as emergency
responders, to the extent such documents exist.
number three in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel relates to
the identity of all persons Defendants will or may call to
testify as expert witnesses. Defendants objected to item
three as being premature. Although the Court has not yet
issued an order requiring disclosure of this information, to
the extent the information is currently known to Defendants,
the request is not premature. Defendants shall identify any
expert witnesses they will or may call to testify at trial or
Defendants shall state that they have not yet identified
expert witnesses who will or may testify at trial.
respect to items four, five, nine, and thirteen
Plaintiff's contention regarding the inadequacy of
Defendants' responses is that Defendants are lying and/or
refusing to disclose information and/or items, which,
according to Plaintiff, Defendants have in their possession.
Because each of Defendants' responses was provided under
oath pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3),
this Court cannot presume Defendants are providing false
information; rather, the Court presumes the information
provided is true and correct to the best of Defendants'
with respect to item six, though they objected, Defendants
also responded that they had no knowledge regarding the
information sought. A party cannot answer a question they have
no knowledge about, and for the same reasons as stated above,
if a party states they have no knowledge regarding a specific
inquiry, this Court presumes that statement is true when it
is a sworn statement as provided by Federal Rule of Civil
respect to item number eight, Plaintiff has requested all
grievances and complaints filed against Defendants concerning
the mistreatment of prisoners. Defendants objected to this
request as overly broad, general, vague, improper, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, as well as unreasonably burdensome. Because, as
Plaintiff argues, items requested are relevant to
Plaintiff's case,  Plaintiff is entitled to some relief
with respect to this request, though the request must be
narrowed in scope to comport with the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Accordingly, Defendants are
ordered to produce all grievances and complaints regarding
incidents like the one alleged in this case, filed against
Cashio and Cowan, for the six months preceding and six months
following the April 18, 2017 incident.
item number ten, Plaintiff seeks medical records from
September 2011 through March 2014. Plaintiff contends that he
has not received medical records for dates prior to March
2014, though Defendants aver they have provided medical
records from January 2013 through March 2018. A review of the
record indicates that Plaintiff has been provided with
medical records beginning in January 2013, as stated by
Defendants. Further, Plaintiff avers he has not been
provided any records from the Avoyelles Correctional Center,
but that is incorrect. Plaintiff has been provided with
medical records from nearly four years prior to the incident
at issue. This Plaintiff's request for medical records
prior to 2013 is overly broad and not proportional to the
needs of this case. Though Plaintiff states these records are
necessary to show what medications he was on at his previous
facility and what duty status he was assigned, these facts
are irrelevant as the only two remaining Defendants in this
suit are the two emergency responders Plaintiff alleges
responded to his accident on April 18, 2017. Plaintiff does
not allege that the remaining Defendants failed to assign him
the proper duty status or withdrew his prior prescriptions.
Rather, these allegations were directed at Dr.
Park who has been dismissed from this
action. Plaintiff is not entitled to any further
medical records predating the date of the alleged incident.
with respect to items eleven and twelve, Plaintiff is
entitled to the records from Plaintiff's treatment at
University Hospital in New Orleans on September 27, 2018 and
November 7, 2018, as well as the records from his December
26, 2018 appointment with Dr. Park. Plaintiff has requested
records from a very limited timeframe, the information
obtained may be relevant to the injuries Plaintiff may have
sustained on the date of the incident,  and obtaining
these records should not unduly burden Defendants.
Accordingly, Defendants shall produce the records requested
in item number eleven/request for production number six and
item number twelve/request for production number eight.
this Court is granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, in
part, the proceedings need not be stayed as this Court will
provide Plaintiff with an extended time to oppose
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as stated below.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Defendants shall produce documents responsive to item numbers
one and two/requests for production one and two. In response
to item number eight/request for production number three,
Defendants shall produce all grievances and complaints
complaining of incidents similar to the incident at issue
herein filed against Cashio and Cowan for the six months
preceding and six months following the incident in this
action. Defendants shall also produce documents in response
to item numbers eleven and twelve/requests for production six
and eight. If Defendants are not in possession of any of the
aforementioned documents, Defendants shall respond
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to
Stay Proceedings be and is hereby
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall produce the
documents and information required by this Order by no later
than October 31, 2019.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted an
extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall file ...