Opinion
4:23-CV-00046-JM-ERE
03-04-2024
WILLIAM MAYFIELD PLAINTIFF v. DANNY CLARK, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Separate Defendant Ray Vance has notified the Court that pro se plaintiff William Mayfield has refused to: (1) execute the revised medical authorization; and (2) fully respond to his discovery requests. Doc. 163.
The revised proposed medical release is well within the scope of permissible discovery. And the Court has previously directed Mr. Mayfield to respond to Request for Production No. 2 and to produce the requested documents. Doc. 151.
Because Mr. Mayfield alleges that he was denied constitutionally adequate medical treatment and medication for his seizures, Defendants are entitled to learn about Mr. Mayfield's past medical treatment and medication related to seizures. Similarly, Mr. Mayfield is obligated to produce any documents that he contends support his damages claim. As the Supreme Court has explained:
Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947); see also Greyhound Lines, Inc., v. Miller, 402 F.2d 134, 143 (8th Cir. 1968) (“The purpose of our modern discovery procedure is to narrow the issues, to eliminate surprise, and to achieve substantial justice.”).
Mr. Mayfield should be aware that if he refuses to cooperate in discovery or to comply with this Court's Order, he may face sanctions, up to and including dismissal of claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant Vance is instructed to provide Mr. Mayfield another copy of the revised medical authorization and request for production No. 2.
2. Mr. Mayfield is ordered to provide Mr. Vance an executed revised medical authorization and his responses to request for production No. 2 within 30 days.
3. Defendant Vance should promptly notify the Court whether Mr. Mayfield has complied with this Court's Order.
4. If Mr. Mayfield fails to comply with this Court's Order, his claims may be dismissed, without prejudice. Local Rule 5.5(c).
So Ordered