Opinion
1:20-cv-11682 District
10-12-2021
DANIEL HORECEK, Plaintiff, v. CARTER, et al., Defendants.
Judge Thomas L. Ludington Magistrate
ANTHONY P. PATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER REGARDING STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 18), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND/OR TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA (ECF No. 19), AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS (ECF No. 24)
This matter came before the Court for consideration of: (1) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 18); (2) Plaintiff's motion for a protective order and/or to quash or modify the subpoena (ECF No. 19), the response in opposition filed by Defendants Beth Carter and Michael E. Havens (the Corizon Defendants) (ECF No. 25), and Plaintiff's reply brief (ECF No. 32); and (3) Plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions (ECF No. 24), the Corizon Defendants' response in opposition (ECF No. 26), and Plaintiffs reply brief (ECF No. 31)
In a September 14, 2021 text-only order, the Court stated: “Although untimely under E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)(B), Plaintiffs motions for leave to file reply briefs (ECF Nos. 31 and 32) are GRANTED. The Court will consider ECF No. 31 Plaintiffs reply to ECF No. 26, and ECF No. 32 Plaintiffs reply to ECF No. 25”
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and for all of the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 18) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated on the record.
(2) Plaintiffs motion for a protective order and/or to quash or modify the subpoena (ECF No. 19) is DENIED for the reasons stated on the record.However, the Court ORDERS that counsel for the Corizon Defendants file a supplemental response by Wednesday, October 13, 2021, indicating whether she served notice of the subject subpoena upon Plaintiff prior to service upon the subpoena upon the MDOC in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(4), and if so, providing details of the service.
On the record at the hearing, the Court mistakenly stated that it was granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs motion for a protective order and/or to quash or modify the subpoena (ECF No. 19), and denying Plaintiffs motion for contempt and sanctions (ECF No. 24). The Court meant the opposite, as provided above; of course, the Court speaks through its written orders.
(3) Plaintiffs motion for contempt and sanctions (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Although the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for contempt and sanctions, for the reasons stated on the record, the Court ORDERS that:
. Plaintiff sign a medical records release form within 21 days of receipt of such a form.
. The MDOC Defendants produce to Plaintiff, by Wednesday, October 27, 2021, Bates-stamped copies of the CHJ-549 healthcare request forms (“KITES”) that are referenced in ECF No. 24, PageID.147, ¶ 3, as originally requested through present.
. The MDOC Defendants produce by Wednesday, November 3, 2021, for Plaintiffs review, all of Plaintiffs medical records from December 1, 2019, through October 6, 2021. Should Plaintiff so choose, he may then request production or copies of those records pursuant to MDOC policy.
. By Wednesday, October 27, 2021, counsel for both the Corizon Defendants and the MDOC Defendants must produce to Plaintiff a list of every individual who accessed Plaintiffs medical files from September 16, 2020 onward, with the exception of Plaintiff's medical providers, and file proof of service upon Plaintiff with the Court.
(4) Counsel for the MDOC Defendants must, by Friday, October 15, 2021, inform the Court in writing whether the MDOC can and will be accepting service on behalf of Defendants Sims, Cindy LNU, and Lisa Adray, for whom it appears service has not yet been completed.
The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), which provides a period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.