The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL WALKER, Civil No. 3:22-cv-713
Plaintiff - (Judge Mariani)
v .
P.A. FAWN LYNN BALDAUF,
Defendant
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Michael Walker (“Walker”), an inmate who was housed, at all relevant times,
at the State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania (“SCl-Huntingdon’), initiated
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding via
an amended complaint against Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner Fawn Baldauf. (Doc.
30). Presently before the Court is Walker’s motion (Doc. 51) to compel discovery. For the
reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
|. Factual Background & Procedural History
The events giving rise to Walker's cause of action stem from the medical treatment
rendered by Defendant at SCl-Huntingdon. (Doc. 30). Walker alleges that Defendant failed
to provide adequate medical care and intentionally denied or delayed medical care and
treatment. (/d. J 1, 3, 71-78).
Walker asserts that he required a “medical surgical procedure to his lower/mild
spinal region to his back.” (/d. 10). In June and July of 2020, Defendant treated Walker
during sick call for complaints of a lesion or abscess on his lower back causing chronic pain.
(Id. J 11). On July 9, 2020, Defendant performed a medical procedure to remove the lesion
or abscess. (/d. J 12). During the procedure, or sometime after the procedure, Defendant
informed Walker that she would schedule him for a post-operative appointment. (/d. { 13).
On July 17, 2020, Walker was called to the medical department for a follow-up with
Defendant. (/d. 14). During this examination, Defendant informed Walker that the sutures
had separated and appeared to be infected. (/d. [ 15). Defendant indicated that she would
prescribe an antibiotic and schedule an appointment with an outside medical provider. (/d.
q 16). Walker asserts that Defendant failed to replace the sutures. (/d.).
During the course of the next several weeks, Walker alleges that his condition
worsened, and Defendant failed to provide follow-up appointments. (/d. 17). Walker was
eventually treated by a prison doctor, nurse, and physician assistant. (/d. {J 42-48). In
October of 2020, physician assistant Nalley performed an additional procedure to his lower
back “because defendant Baldauf...refused.” (/d. |] 53-54). Physician assistant Nalley
subsequently prescribed an antibiotic. (/d. 57).
Walker further alleges that Defendant retaliated against him for filing a grievance.
(Id. 4, 60, 80). He also sets forth various state law claims. (/d. {J 81-90).
Walker filed the instant motion to compel discovery wherein he asserts that
Defendant's answers and responses to his Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents were evasive and untruthful. (Doc. 51; Doc. 52, p. 5). The motion is ripe for
resolution.
ll. Legal Standard
A party who has received evasive or incomplete discovery responses may seek a
court order compelling disclosures or discovery of the materials sought. Feb. R. Civ P.
37(a). The moving party must demonstrate the relevance of the information sought to a
particular claim or defense. The burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must
demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request does not fall within the broad scope
of discovery or is otherwise privileged or improper. Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp. 255,
258 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
Generally, courts afford considerable latitude in discovery in order to ensure that
litigation proceeds with “the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.”
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)
provides that a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case...
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” FED. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “[A]ll relevant material is discoverable unless an
applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted. The presumption that such matter is
discoverable, however, is defeasible.” Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2000).
Furthermore, the court may limit discovery if the discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative, duplicative, or readily obtainable from some other source, the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information through discovery, or the
proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). Feb. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C).
lll. Discussion
Walker takes issue with several of Defendant’s responses to his Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents. (Docs. 51, 52). The Court will address each
request in turn.
A. — Requests for Answers to Interrogatories
Walker asks the Court to compel Defendant to provide additional answers to
nine interrogatories, asserting that her responses are evasive. (See Docs. 51, 52,
53-1).
Interrogatory Number 1: What is your educational and medical history and
background. In your answer you are identify any and all medical
certifications, certificates, documents, statements, Collegiate Degree’s, or, BS
in medical/medicine care and treatment.
ANSWER: Responding Defendant, Fawn Baldauf, is a Certified Registered
Nurse Practitioner with the training and education commensurate with this
degree and licensure as governed by the Pennsylvania Board of Nursing.
Defendant states that she produced her licensing report from the Commonwealth to
demonstrate that she is fully licensed. (Doc. 53, p. 3). She further responds that she
earned her nursing diploma from Pottsville Hospital School of Nursing, her bachelor’s
degree in nursing from Penn State University, and her master’s degree in nursing from
Concordia University, Wisconsin. (/d.). Additionally, she is board certified by the American
Association of Nurse Practitioners. (/d.). Based on the additional information provided by
Defendant, Walker “does ‘not object’, to defendant's answers.” (Doc. 69, p. 13). The Court
will deny the motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory Number 1.
Interrogatory Number 9: What information(s) concerning the events in
question regarding this civil rights action, prior to you performing of said
medical procedural upon plaintiff, on July 9, 2020, did you not diagnose
plaintiff with having of a serious medical need.
ANSWER: The corresponding Interrogatory is unintelligible as written, and, as
such, Responding Defendant cannot reasonably respond. By way of further
response, Plaintiffs medical records would likely contain the information
sought by this Interrogatory. Responding Defendant] ] also objects to the
instant Interrogatory in that it calls for a legal conclusion.
Interrogatory Number 10: If your answer is YES, to Interrogatory No. 9,
please in full complete details and with specificity, explain in medical terms,
or, explanation to your diagnosis of plaintiff, and the sever of his medical
needs/condition causing and/or leading up to medical surgical procedural, on
July 9,2020.
ANSWER: See, Responding Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 9.
Defendant maintains that she does not have personal recollection of Walker's
medical history or treatment because she has treated numerous patients over the
years and because she no longer works for Wellpath. (Doc. 53, p. 4). Defendant
maintains further that Walker can review his medical records, which have been
provided to him, for specific information about his medical treatment. It appears that
Walker is asking whether Defendant diagnosed him with a serious medical condition
prior to July 9, 2020. (Doc. 52, p. 8). The Court will grant the motion to compel with
respect to Interrogatory Numbers 9 and 10 and direct Defendant to provide a further
response.
Interrogatory Number 13: It is true that during post surgical
examination/observation to plaintiff's serious medical needs/conditions, On
July 17,2022, the defendant, in fact, observed plaintiff's having of
complication: As an Example: ‘Surgical Prolene Sultures’ separated from
‘performed incision’, thereby cauing, bleeding, inflammation, flutuant and
purulent discharge and swelling. In your answer please identify any and all
documents supporting your answer.
ANSWER: The corresponding Interrogatory is unintelligible as written, and, as
such, Responding Defendant cannot reasonably respond. By way of further
response, Plaintiff's medical records would likely contain the information
sought by this Interrogatory.
Defendant again represents that she does not have personal recollection of
Walker's medical history or treatment, she no longer works for Wellpath, and that
Walker can review his own medical records for specific information about his medical
treatment. (Doc. 53, p. 5). It appears that Walker is inquiring as to whether
Defendant observed any complications, such as ruptured sutures, after the
procedure on July 17, 2020. (Doc. 52, pp. 9-10). The Court will grant the motion to
compel with respect to Interrogatory Number 13 and direct Defendant to provide a
further response.
Interrogatory Number 16: If your answer is NO, to Interrogatory No. 14.
Please in full complete and factual details, and with specificity, your reason,
or, reason(s) for no recommendation.
ANSWER: See, Responding Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 14.
Interrogatory Number 17: It is true that you did not participate and/or take part
in additional surgical procedural on October 29 and/or 30, 2020, to correct
error from previous procedural. If your answer is NO, please in full complete
and factual details, and with specificity, your reason, or, reasons for no
participation.
ANSWER: Pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 33(d), the information sought by this
Interrogatory is equally available to Plaintiff as it is to Defendant because the
information sought is recorded in Plaintiff's medical records, which have been
produced to him. See, Plaintiffs medical records. Defendant further objects
to this Interrogatory as an attempt to improperly shift Plaintiff's burden of
reviewing his own medical records to Defendant.
Interrogatory Number 14 asks whether Defendant recommended that Walker
be treated by an outside medical provider on July 27, 2020. (Doc. 53-1, p. 6). In her
answer to Interrogatory Numbers 14 and 17, Defendant responded that while she
could not understand what was being asked by the Interrogatory, Walker should
review his medical records. (Doc. 53, pp. 6-7). Defendant further responded that
she does not have personal recollection of Walker's medical history or treatment and
she no longer works for Wellpath. (/d.). It appears that Walker is inquiring as to
whether Defendant recommended that Walker be treated by an outside medical
provider on July 27, 2020, and whether or not she participated in an additional
surgical procedural on October 29, 2020, or October 30, 2020. The Court will grant
the motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory Numbers 16 and 17 and direct
Defendant to provide further responses.
Interrogatory Number 19: Please identify each and every document, records
and/or recordings to Defendant's work performance evaluation as a ‘PA’,
employed by ‘DOC’, and from the periods of initial hiring and to present day.
ANSWER: Responding Defendant ] objects to the corresponding
Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence, particularly in when the
Interrogatory seeks “each and every document” without limitation and over a
period of many years outside of the allegations. Further, Responding
Defendant[ ] objects on the basis that the information sought is itrelevant to
the narrow issues involved in this lawsuit.
The Court agrees with Defendant. This request is overbroad and asks for
information concerning Defendant's work performance and activities likely with other
inmates, the relevancy of which, if any, is substantially outweighed by the burden of
production, confidentiality, and proportionality considerations. The motion to compel
this information is denied.
Interrogatory Number 24: Please identify the ‘Essential and Nature’ on basis
and purposes regarding defendant’s Administrative Transfer from SCI-
Huntingdon to SCl-Smithfield between the periods of November 2021 to
November 2022. In your answer you should identify the persons, place and
times of the communication, administrative decision-making and reasons for
administrative action taken.
ANSWER: Responding Defendant is a former contracted provider of medical
services for Wellpath and is not an employee of the PA Department of
Corrections. Defendant has no responsive knowledge or information related
to transfers or assignments from the Office of Population Management.
Interrogatory Number 25: With referenced to Interrogatory No. 24, please
identify and provide copies of documents involving, institutional/
administrative review, internal investigations, or, decision-making, any
complaints, and/or recommendations made by SCl-Huntingdon’s medical
dept., arising more than one (1) before initial administrative review, or,
decision-making process, and those involved, you should identify in your
answer, the persons, place and time of communications and reasons for
administrative actions, decision-making procedural and/or process, and,
reasons for transfer to SCl-Smithfield.
ANSWER: See, Responding Defendant’s Answer to Interrogatory No. 24.
Walker seeks information concerning Defendant's transfer to a different
facility during November 2021 through November 2022. The Court will deny
Walker's attempt to uncover Defendant's employment history as this information is
likely confidential.
RB, Requests for Production of Documents
Walker seeks an Order to compel! Defendant to produce additional materials with
respect to Request Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 25.
(Doc. 52, pp. 14-23; see also Doc. 53-2). Those requests are as follows.
Production Request No. 3: Any and all copies to SCl-Huntingdon’s Medical
dept's, directives, memo’s, policies, or, material information(s) showing the
authorization and/or approval for defendant to act and perform medical
surgical procedural upon plaintiff, on July 9, 2020.
RESPONSE: See Plaintiffs medical records attached by way of response for
records related to medical treatment on July 9th, 2020, which would include
any authorizations that may have been required.
Production Request No. 4: Any and all copies of documents to SCI-
Huntingdon’s medical dept’s., directives, policies, regulations, memo’s, data,
or, material information(s), on its ‘Protocol's and procedures on performing
medical procedures and/or medical emergencies.
RESPONSE: As a former contracted provider of health care services within
the PA Department of Corrections, Wellpath adheres to DOC policies and
procedures. Consequently, such documents, if any exist, would be in the
custody or control of the DOC, not Responding Defendant. By way of further
response, Responding Defendant no longer works for Wellpath, and she has
not retained any policies/memos/etc. that she might previously have had
access to.
Production Request No. 5: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material informations relied upon to defendant’s answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 1.
RESPONSE: See attached information from Bureau of Professional and
Occupational Affairs.
Production Request No. 6: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant’s answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 2.
RESPONSE: See Answer to Request 5.
10
Production Request No. 7: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant's answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 3.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available.
Production Request No. 9: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant's answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 5.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available that has not
been produced by way of responses to these requests.
Production Request No. 10: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant's answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 6.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available that has not
been produced by way of responses to these requests.
Production Request No. 11: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant’s answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 7.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available that has not
been produced by way of responses to these requests.
Production Request No. 13: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant’s answer to Fiaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 9.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available that has not
been produced by way of responses to these requests.
11
Production Request No. 15: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant's answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 19.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available.
Production Request No. 17: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant’s answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 21.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available that has not
been produced by way of responses to these requests.
Production Request No. 18: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant's answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 22.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available.
Production Request No. 19: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant’s answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 23.
RESPONSE: No additional responsive information available that has not
been produced by way of responses to these requests.
Production Request No. 20: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant’s answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 24.
RESPONSE: As a former contracted provider of health care services within
the PA Department of Corrections, Wellpath adheres to DOC policies and
procedures. As such, such documents, if any exist, would be in the custody
or control of the DOC.
12
Production Request No. 21: Any and all copies to production of documents
and/or material information(s) relied upon to defendant’s answer to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 25.
RESPONSE: As a former contracted provider of health care services within
the PA Department of Corrections, Wellpath adheres to DOC policies and
procedures. As such, such documents, if any exist, would be in the custody
or control of the DOC.
Production Request No. 22: Any and all copies of documents and/or material
information(s) to any complaints filed against defendant, as a ‘PA’, including,
but not limited to: Criminal, Civil, Medical Malpractice, Civil Service Actions,
Medical State Board, institutional and/or prison, prison’s investigation office,
and its factual and conclusive findings, decision-making and resolutions.
RESPONSE: Responding Defendant objects to the form of this Request as
being overbroad, burdensome and irrelevant as to time and scope outside the
present lawsuit. By way of further response, Defendant Baldauf is a CRNP,
and not a PA, and as such has not been named as a PA. Furthermore, Ms.
Baldauf may have been named in additional suits but does not keep a list or
otherwise has that information at her disposal. Regardless, the requested
information is likely public information, to the extent it exists, and is therefore
equally in Plaintiffs ability to obtain as Defendant's.
Production Request No. 25: Any and all Tangible things, data, photographs,
diagrams, reports, recordings, audio, video and/or tapings to the facts alleged
in Plaintiffs complaint and defenses and factual assertions in Defendant's
answers.
RESPONSE: See Plaintiffs moves and cell history report which Defendant
has also received by way of subpoena.
(Doc. 53-2).
In her collective response to Walker’s motion to compel additional documents,
Defendant asserts that she subpoenaed the relevant records from the Pennsylvania
13
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and provided those records to Walker. (Doc. 53, pp. 10-
11). Walker challenges Defendant’s representation that the DOC is the custodian of his
institutional records and that she does not have access to the requested documents. (Doc.
69, p. 21).
Defendant represents that she produced the following records to Walker: (1)
approximately 700 pages of medical records, (2) approximately 100 pages of grievance
records, (3) a moves report, (4) a cell history report, and (5) Defendant's licensure report
with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (/d.). Defendant maintains that she has no
further documents in her possession which are responsive to Walker's Requests for
Production of Documents. (/d.). She maintains further that she no longer works for
Wellpath. (/d.). The Court finds this to be a sufficient answer. As Defendant is no longer
employed by Wellpath, she most likely does not have access to any Wellpath documents.
To the extent that Walker seeks production of DOC policies relevant to Wellpath, such
policies are publicly available on the DOC’s website."
Additionally, the DOC maintains records for inmates in state prisons. The Court
notes that pursuant to DC-ADM 003, Walker can view his medical records directly from the
DOC by submitting a form DC-135A. See DC-ADM 003.2
+See hitps://www.pa.govlagencies/corlabout-us/doc-policies htm
2 The Policy is available online at https://www.pa.gov/agencies/cor/about-us/doc-policies.html.
14
It is clear that Defendant has largely complied with the Requests for Production of
Documents served upon her by Walker. The Court, therefore, will deny the motion to
compel with respect to Walker's Requests for Production of Documents.
IV. Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing, Walker's motion (Doc. 51) to compel will be granted in
part and denied in part.
Defendant shall supplement her responses to Interrogatory Numbers 9, 10, 13, 16,
and 17, as set forth herein. The motion to compel responses to Interrogatory Numbers 1,
19, 24, and 25 will be denied.
Finally, the Court will deny Walker's motion seeking to compel additional responses
to his Requests for Production of Documents to the extent that the documents are not in the
Defendant's possession, custody, or control.
A separate Order shall issue.
2?
(C4
Robert D. Mariani-
United States District Judge
Dated: May 23 2025
15