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.

CALDWELL v. CENTER FOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH

June 3, 2005.

LAWRENCE CALDWELL, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTER FOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH AND POLICY STUDIES, INC. et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN FACCIOLA, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, hereby,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders [#47] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further, hereby,

  ORDERED that counsel shall individually show cause, within ten days of the date of this Order, why I should not sanction each of them for behavior during the discovery process as outlined in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. It is further, hereby,

  ORDERED that counsel meet and confer within ten days of this Order, to resolve any outstanding interrogatories and requests to produce documents. If the parties are unable to resolve any outstanding matters, they shall, within twenty days of the date of this Order, file a joint praecipe certifying that they have made a genuine effort to resolve their differences but failed. Plaintiff may then, by that same latter date, move to compel any additional responses or documents.

  SO ORDERED. MEMORANDUM OPINION

  This case was referred to me for all discovery disputes. Currently pending and ready for resolution is Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

  INTRODUCTION

  Plaintiff, Lawrence Caldwell, ("plaintiff") was previously confined as a prisoner at the Central Detention Facility in the District of Columbia. According to plaintiff, while he was an inmate, he required the medical services of The Center for Correctional Health and Policy Studies, Inc., and others ("CCHPS" or "defendants"). The basis of plaintiff's civil suit against defendants is that the dental, eye, skin cancer, and transport services provided by defendants were not adequate and that he also suffered retaliation as a result of his complaining about the quality of the care he received. Amended Complaint for Monetary Damages, Declaratory Relief, and a Trial by Judge.

  DISCUSSION

  I. The Course of Discovery

  On March 15, 2004, plaintiff served defendants with interrogatories, requests for admission, and document requests. Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders ("Plains. Mem."), Wallach Declaration at 1. On June 3, 2004, at a status hearing held before Judge Kessler, discovery was stayed and the case was referred for mediation. Plains. Mem., Exhibit 1. By order of the same date, the court indicated that the parties were still obliged to respond to any outstanding discovery requests, "including Defendants' identification of expert witnesses due on June 8, 2004," but that any additional discovery was stayed. Id. On July 30, 2004, defendants responded to plaintiff's requests for admission. Plains. Mem., Wallach Declaration at 2.

  On August 17, 2004, another status hearing was held before Judge Kessler. By minute entry of the same date, the court set a discovery deadline of December 1, 2004, thus lifting the previously imposed stay. Id. at 3. On October 28, 2004, defendants responded to the majority of plaintiff's document requests and on December 29, 2004, defendants supplemented that response. Id.

  On January 3, 2005, I had a telephone conference call with counsel. Following the call, I ordered, inter alia, defendants to reply to any outstanding interrogatories by January 17, 2005, and indicated that plaintiff could, by the same date, move to compel if the answers were not received. Plains. Mem., Exhibit 3. I also indicated that the parties would have until January 17, 2005 to schedule any remaining depositions and that plaintiff would have 7 hours to depose Dr. Hammond and ...


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.