The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JASON WILLARD BRAMLETT PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 6:19-CV-06070
WELLPATH LLC, et. al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
(ECF No. 39).
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges he is being denied prescribed medical care, medications,
treatments, disability-assist devices, and hygienic necessities for his conditions, including multiple
sclerosis (“MS”). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel on June 29, 2020. (ECF No.
39). Plaintiff identifies several items requested in discovery, but not provided by Defendants due
to discovery objections. Plaintiff alleges he has conferred with Defendants in an attempt to resolve
the dispute. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce the following:
1. Any ADC health policy which may have, or did, influence or cause to exist
treatment decisions as applied to Plaintiff, beyond those already disclosed. (As
sought in Production Request #2)
2. Any corporate policies which had any impact upon treatment decisions
concerning the Plaintiff, especially those concerned with the cost thereof. (As
sought by Request #4)
3. Plaintiff’s COMPLETE medical record, regarding ALL facets thereof. (As
sought by Request #4)
4. All other documents concerning the Plaintiff’s healthcare, or pertaining to
grievances, concerned thereof composed by or received by any Wellpath employee
in any form. (As sought by Request # 5 and #6)1
5. A list of lawsuits filed by incarcerated persons naming CCS, Wellpath, Dr.
Stieve or Dr. Daniel that has gone to trial, been settled or still proceeding (if not
frivolous, i.e. surviving initial review and Motion to dismiss) from March 1st 2017
until the present (As requested in Request #8).
6. Any citations, reprimands, notices or other actions taken by State licensure
boards, agencies or other public entities against Wellpath (CCS), Dr. Stieve or Dr.
Daniel, as well as any other corrective action and whether completed or ongoing in
the prior 5 years.
(Id. at 1-2).
Defendants filed their Response to the motion on July 15, 2020, and stand by the objections
provided to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 47). Regarding Plaintiff’s policy requests, they state that medical
treatment decisions are based on medical judgment, not policies. (Id. at 1). Regarding Plaintiff’s
request for his medical records, they state that ADC security policy prohibits inmates from having
possession of their medical records. Instead, inmates are free to review their records upon request,
and Defendants have contacted the Health Services Administrator, informed the administrator of
this case, and asked that Plaintiff be given liberal and frequent reviews of his medical records. (Id.
at 1-2, 47-1). They further state that Plaintiff has not contacted Defendants’ counsel regarding any
problems with access to his medical records. (Id. at 2).
Defendants have “no response” to the request for grievances and other documents, other
than to state that Plaintiff has been provided copies of all grievance documents. (Id. at 2-3).
Regarding Plaintiff’s request for a list of lawsuits, Defendants state that this document does not
exist, would need to be created, and would require hundreds of hours to create. Further, the
1 In his discovery documents, Plaintiff asks for email or other messages sent inside EOMIS from or to Dr. Stieve and
Dr. Daniel concerning Plaintiff’s medical care, including communications with ADC personnel regarding
grievances.
Defendants’ litigation history has no bearing on whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiff’s medical care. (Id. at 3). Regarding Plaintiff’s request for citations or other
disciplinary documents, Defendant state that, assuming these documents from “various and
unidentified entities” would not be privileged and protected by quality control management, the
request has no bearing on Plaintiff’s medical care for his MS. (Id. at 3).
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts construe that grant “broadly to
encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear
on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,
352 (1978). While the scope of relevant discovery is broad, however, “this often intoned legal
tenet should not be misapplied so as to allow fishing expeditions in discovery.” Hofer v. Mack
Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992).
Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s requests are appropriate. ADC policy 800.00,
provided to both Plaintiff and the Court, clearly states that inmates may not possess copies of their
medical records. Plaintiff is encouraged to take advantage of the more liberal viewing
opportunities provided to him for this case.
Plaintiff asks for all communications to and from his physicians, including any
communication with ADC personnel regarding grievances. Defendants have given Plaintiff all
grievance documents. In their discovery response to this question, they also state that they are not
aware of any email or other messages send inside EOMIS concerning Plaintiff’s medical care.
(ECF No. 39-2 at 6). Plaintiff was further informed that Defendants Daniel and Stieve do not
recall communicating by text or email about his case, and Defendant Daniel did not see anything
related to Plaintiff upon a brief review of his communications with Defendant Stieve. (ECF No.
39-2 at 1). Rule 34 provides for the production documents and things within “the responding
party’s possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (a)(1). Defendants cannot produce
what does not exist.
Plaintiff alleges that the cost of his MS treatment was a factor in the decision to stop the
treatment. To the extent his requests for ADC and corporate policies could be relevant to his
claims, as propounded they are overbroad, not proportional to the case, and not narrowly tailored
to address the issues in his case as required by the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See e.g. Sabata v.
Nebraska Dept. of Correctional Services, 4:17CV3107, 2020 WL 2201873, at *2 (D. Neb. May 1,
2020), objections overruled, 4:17-CV-3107, 2020 WL 3047479 (D. Neb. June 8, 2020) (inmates’
emergency request for the prison’s COVID-19 policy not relevant to their underlying claim for
constitutionally deficient health care).
Plaintiff’s requests for disciplinary documents from unidentified agencies or entities and a
litigation list are clearly a fishing expedition. As propounded, they do not appear “to encompass
any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue
that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 351. Further, documents
created by counsel in anticipation of litigation are generally not discoverable pursuant to 26(b)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of July 2020.
/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE