Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-00046/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-00046-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

WILLIAM MAYFIELD PLAINTIFF 

ADC #659228 

 

V. NO. 4:23-cv-00046-JM-ERE 

SHERIDAN DETENTION CENTER, et al. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

On January 5, 2024, Separate Defendant Ray Vance filed a motion requesting 

a Court order compelling pro se Plaintiff William Mayfield to fully respond to 

written discovery requests and to complete an authorization to disclose health 

information (a medical release). Doc. 120. 

 The proposed medical release is unlimited in time and scope. Not only does 

the release go backward in time, without limitation, it permits disclosure of any 

medical records created up to three years in the future. See Doc. 120-1 at p. 15. 

Defendant Vance is directed to supplement his motion to compel to explain 

why the proposed medical release authorization is consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1)’s requirements of relevance and proportionality. See Sentis Group, Inc. v. 

Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919, 926 (8th Cir. 2014) (parties may fully investigate the 

relevant facts to “gain an understanding of the key persons, relationships, and 

evidence in a case[.]”); Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) 

(quoting Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Co., 312 F.R.D. 459, 468 (N.D. Tex. 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 122 Filed 01/08/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

2015) (“[A] court can—and must—limit proposed discovery that it determines is not 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at 

stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 

likely benefit—and the court must do so even in the absence of a motion.”). 

Mr. Mayfield may also submit a response in opposition to the pending motion 

to compel. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

 1. Defendant Vance is directed to file a supplement to his motion to 

compel (Doc. 120) no later than January 16, 2024. 

 2. If Mr. Mayfield wants to file a response opposing the motion to compel, 

he must do so by January 18, 2024. 

 SO ORDERED 8 January 2024. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 122 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 2