Opinion
21-12599
08-09-2023
BYRON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
DENISE PAGE HOOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING
CURTIS IVY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 59), he seeks to elicit testimony from deponents who worked in security at the psychiatric facility on their observations of disparate patient care at the facility. In the conclusion to his motion, he requests entry of a protective order stating “that any documents referring to patients be redacted so that patients' names are not disclosed and that any personally identifying information is removed and that no information will be sought regarding specific patients' medical diagnoses, course of treatment and/or medication.” (ECF No. 59, PageID.644) (emphasis added). He thus appears to acknowledge that he is not entitled to patient identifying information, diagnoses, and medical treatments. Even so it appears he desires to obtain discovery related to medical care given to patients.
The Court orders supplemental briefing from the parties. Plaintiff must explain, in 5 pages or less, how he plans to obtain employee perceptions of medical treatment without eliciting answers about medical treatment consistent with the protective order contemplated in his motion. Plaintiff's brief is due within 7 days of this Order. Defendants must file a response brief, not to exceed 5 pages, within 7 days of service of Plaintiff's brief. No reply will be allowed from Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d).