Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ardis v. Jindal

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 10, 2019

KENNETH FOSTER ARDIS, Plaintiff
v.
ROSILYN JINDAL and TAMMRA S. ROTHHAAR, Defendants.

          Linda V. Parker District Judge.

         ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JINDAL'S MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT A TO HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF 44), GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION (ECF 49), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY (ECF 50), & DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE COURT TO DEMAND THAT MDOC HEALTH CARE GIVE HIM A COMPLETE COPY OF HIS MEDICAL FILE (ECF 51)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         A. There are two pending dispositive motions (ECFs 41, 45), which will be addressed under separate cover.

         Kenneth Foster Ardis initiated this lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan. See Case No. 2:18-cv-00169-RJJ-TPG (W.D. Mich.). On October 25, 2018, he filed an amended complaint, which named two Defendants, “(Unknown) Jinhal, ” i.e., Rosilyn Jindal, P.A., and “Nurse Jane Doe, ” i.e., Tammra Rothhaar. (ECF 2 ¶¶ 6, 7; ECFs 20, 39.) The case was transferred to this district on November 9, 2018.

         Currently pending before the Court are two dispositive motions: (1) MDOC Defendant Rothhaar's motion for summary judgment (ECF 41), regarding which Plaintiff filed a timely response (ECFs 42, 43); and, (2) Defendant Jindal's motion for summary judgment (ECF 45), regarding which Plaintiff's response was due on September 20, 2019 (ECF 47). These motions, each of which raises both exhaustion and substantive issues, will be addressed under separate cover. (ECF 41 at 5, ECF 45 at 8.)

         B. Meanwhile, Defendant Jindal's motion to seal (ECF 44) is granted.

         Jindal is not a state employee but is allegedly employed by Corizon Health. (ECF 45 at 22, ECF 41 at 7.) On August 16, 2019, Defendant Jindal filed a motion to seal Exhibit A to her motion for summary judgment. (ECF 44; see also ECF 45-1.) Concurrently, Defendant Jindal filed under seal 41-pages of Plaintiff's medical records. (ECF 46.)

         Having described the documents at issue as “Relevant Portions of Plaintiff's MDOC Medical Record, ” (ECF 45-1), and having cited the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Defendant Jindal's motion to seal (ECF 44) is GRANTED, the Court finding that the documents in question (ECF 46) are replete with protected health information (PHI). See 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.

         C. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit concerning Defendant Jindal (ECF 48), and Plaintiff's motion for time extension (ECF 49) has been granted.

         On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed an affidavit that, at least in part, responded to Defendant Jindal's affidavit in support of her motion for summary judgment. (ECF 48 [Pl.'s Affid.], ECF 45-2 [Jindal Affid.].) Among other things, Plaintiff attests that the documents Jindal provided “are inadequate and/or lacking in their entirety[.]” (ECF 48 ¶ 7.) Here, the Court assumes that Plaintiff is referring to the various attachments to Jindal's August 16, 2019 dispositive motion (ECFs 44, 45-1, 45-3) and/or the fact that he had yet to receive Jindal's September 20, 2019 discovery responses (ECF 50 at 6-10).

         At the same time, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time within which to file a response to, presumably, Defendant Jindal's motion for summary judgment. (ECFs 48, 49.) On October 4, 2019, I extended Plaintiff's response deadline to October 21, 2019. Plaintiff also claims that the matters sought by his discovery requests are “needed for a complete and proper response[, ]” and “vital for a proper and equitable response.” (ECF 49 ¶¶ 2, 5.) Clearly, Plaintiff intends to invoke Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) (“When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant.”).[1] However, for the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (ECF 50) will be denied.

         D. Plaintiff's motion for an order compelling discovery (ECF 50) is denied as filed.

         By way of background, on September 20, 2019, Defendant Jindal served responses to 14 discovery requests. (See ECF 50 at 6-10.) In each case, Defendant Jindal objected on the basis that serving discovery on September 11, 2019 was not timely under this Court's initial scheduling order, which set a discovery cut-off of October 10, 2019. (Id.; ECF 26.)[2] Additionally, as to 12 of the requests, Defendant Jindal responded that “there is no document responsive [sic] containing the requested information[, ]” and, as to 2 of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.