PRICE V. LEFLORE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER PUBLIC TRUST
2014 WL 3672874 (E.D. Okla. 2014)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Price (P) motioned to compel discovery and Leflore (D) objected.
FACTS: P asserts claims under title 42, section 1983 stemming from the death of her son,
while he was incarcerated in the D County Jail. P seeks to compel D to respond to the
following discovery request:
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify any written complaints concerning failure to provide
medical treatment to inmates at the detention center for the ten years prior to the filing
of this action.
P argues these records are relevant to her allegations that D had an unconstitutional policy
of denial of medical treatment to its prisoners and that Defendant Brandi Saulsberry was
negligent in her supervision. D objected on the grounds that 'P's request is overbroad,
unreasonably burdensome, not relevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.' Further D claims it would have to review all inmate
grievances, inmate requests to staff, lawsuits, and Notice of Tort Claims submitted by
anyone for the past 10 years, and D objects to doing this. D did present evidence that since
May 2011 D has been sued three times to the best of his knowledge for alleged denial of
medical treatment. D argues that its response to Interrogatory 15 was responsive because P's
request was phrased as 'any written complaints' rather than 'all written complaints.' By
requesting 'any written complaints' P is only requesting some of the written complaints that
may exist.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment