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

 

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

DANNY CLARK, et al. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Defendant Ray Vance’s motions asking the Court to 

compel pro se plaintiff William Mayfield to fully respond to his requests for 

production and provide fully executed medical release forms. Docs. 120, 129. For 

reasons that follow, the motions to compel are granted in part and denied in part. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Mr. Mayfield brings this lawsuit concerning his prior detention at the Sheridan 

Detention Center (“Detention Center”). In his third amended complaint, he claims 

that the Detention Center Administrator, Danny Clark, and former Grant County 

Sheriff, Defendant Vance, denied him adequate medical treatment for seizures. Doc. 

23.

1 

1 Mr. Mayfield has two other open cases in this Court raising different claims. See Mayfield 

v. Gilliam, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:23-cv-01214-LPR-ERE (alleging that four Defendants 

failed to protect him from an inmate attack that occurred on November 26, 2023); and Mayfield v. 

Parsons, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:23-cv-1050-LPR-ERE (alleging that Saline County 

Defendants provided him blood pressure medication that caused him to lose color in his vision). 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 151 Filed 02/08/24 Page 1 of 7
2 

 Mr. Mayfield alleges that, on December 31, 2022, he fell and hit his head at 

the Detention Center and has experienced seizures “from that point on.” Doc. 126 at 

3. He states that he received treatment at the Saline Memorial Hospital emergency 

room, where a doctor prescribed seizure medication, but Defendants failed to give 

him the medication as prescribed and demonstrated deliberate indifference to his 

serious medical needs. Doc. 23. He seeks money damages, including an award for 

future medical expenses, including “any surgeries” that may be required. Doc. 23 at 

9. 

 On November 28, 2023, Defendant Vance sent Mr. Mayfield written 

discovery requests, including interrogatories, requests for production, and two 

requests for admission. Doc. 120-1. Request for Production No.1 asks Mr. Mayfield 

to sign and produce an attached medical release form, and Request for Production 

No. 2 asks him to provide any and all documents showing his alleged damages. Doc. 

120-1 at 13-15. 

 On December 15, 2023, Mr. Mayfield filed responses to Defendant Vance’s 

interrogatories and requests for admissions. Doc. 112. His filing did not include 

responses to the requests for production and noted that he felt that Defendants were 

attempting to violate the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act 

(“HIPAA”).2 Doc. 112 at 2. He stated “I only give Court’s authorization of any 

2

 HIPAA permits covered health care provided to disclose medical information: (1) with 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 151 Filed 02/08/24 Page 2 of 7
3 

medical records they need. I think this lawyer [is] really trying to violate HIPPA 

laws.” Id. 

 By letter to Mr. Mayfield dated December 21, 2023, defense counsel 

requested that Mr. Mayfield execute the medical release form. Doc. 120-2 at 1. The 

letter warned that if the authorization were not received by January 2, 2024, counsel 

would file a motion to compel. Id. Mr. Mayfield did not respond. 

 On January 5, 2023, Defendant Vance filed his first motion to compel seeking 

full responses to his requests for production, including executed copies of the 

attached medical release form. 3 Docs. 120, 121. 

 By Order entered January 8 2024 (Doc. 122), the Court directed Defendant 

Vance to supplement his motion to compel by explaining how the proposed medical 

release was consistent with the scope of permissible discovery set forth under Rule 

26(b)(1). In addition, the Court gave Mr. Mayfield up to and including January 18, 

2024, to file a response. 

the patient’s written consent, see 45 C.F.R § 164.508; (2) a court order, see 45 C.F.R. § 164.512; 

or (3) a subpoena or discovery request. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(ii). Nothing in the record 

indicates that Defendant Vance is attempting to violate HIPAA. The question before the Court is 

whether the proposed medical release seeks information within the scope of permissible discovery 

under Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3

 Defendant Vance’s motion to compel and his letter to Mr. Mayfield specifically seek 

responses to requests for production, including executed medical authorizations. Docs. 120 at 1, 

120-2. Defendant Vance generally states that Mr. Mayfield failed to fully answer interrogatories 

and requests for admission (Doc. 121 at 2), but he fails to specify how Mr. Mayfield’s responses 

to interrogatories and requests for admission are incomplete or inadequate. 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 151 Filed 02/08/24 Page 3 of 7
4 

 On January 12, 2024, Defendant Vance supplemented the motion to compel 

as directed. Doc. 129. Mr. Mayfield has not filed a response. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, unless 

otherwise limited by court order, parties may obtain discovery regarding “any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any parties’ claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case . . . ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Regarding Defendant Vance’s Request for Production No. 2, it is clear that 

“documents (including but not limited to bills, invoices, or receipts) or other tangible 

items” that Mr. Mayfield believes show any element of claimed damages are 

discoverable. Mr. Mayfield must provide all documents and items responsive to 

Request for Production No. 2, which are in his possession, custody, or control. 

As for Request for Production No. 1, the Court must determine whether the 

information sought by the proposed medical release is relevant and proportional to 

the needs of the case. While generous, the permissible scope of discovery under Rule 

26(b) does not allow a fishing expedition, and “[s]ome threshold showing of 

relevance must be made before parties are required to open wide the doors of 

discovery and to produce a variety of information which does not reasonably bear 

upon the issues in the case.” Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8thCir. 

1992); see also Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 151 Filed 02/08/24 Page 4 of 7
5 

Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Co., 312 F.R.D. 459, 468 (N.D. Tex. 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 complains about medical treatment he received for seizures, but 

the proposed medical release covers unlimited medical conditions. For example, it 

even allows discovery of the following information: 

I understand that the information in my health records may include 

information relating to sexually transmitted disease, acquired 

immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or human immunodeficiency 

virus (HIV). It may also include information about behavioral or mental 

health services, and treatment for alcohol and drug abuse . . . . 

Doc. 120-1 at 15. 

 Defendant Vance contends that the proposed medical release seeks relevant 

information because “when or if Plaintiff was previously diagnosed with a seizure 

disorder [or prescribed seizure medication] is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of being 

denied such medication/treatment.” Doc. 129 at 2. The Court agrees that such 

information is discoverable. However, the proposed release goes far beyond that. 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 151 Filed 02/08/24 Page 5 of 7
6 

 While Defendant Vance is entitled to any medical records related to the 

seizure disorder that Mr. Mayfield has placed in controversy, a medical release 

asking for his entire medical history, with no effort to limit its scope, is too broad. 

The Court will give Defendant Vance latitude to request medical information 

arguably bearing upon the matter in controversy – that is, whether Defendant Vance 

has ever suffered from or been prescribed medication for seizures. 

 The temporal scope of the release is also unreasonably broad, permitting the 

release of all past medical records, with no time limit. Defendant Vance is entitled 

to obtain medical records for a reasonable period of time before the alleged 

December 31, 2022 onset date, but an unlimited time period is disproportional to the 

needs in this case.4 

 As for medical records created in the future, the proposed release states that, 

unless revoked by Mr. Mayfield, it will remain in effect for three years from 

execution, making it possible that the authorization will remain in effect even after 

this case is closed. Given Mr. Mayfield’s request for future medical expenses, 

Defendant Vance appropriately requests future medical records. However, the 

authorization should not extend beyond the closure of this case. 

 

4 A narrowed subject matter scope would arguably support a broader temporal scope (7-10 

years). 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 151 Filed 02/08/24 Page 6 of 7
7 

III. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant Vance’s motion to compel (Doc. 120) and supplemental 

motion to compel (Doc. 129) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

2. Within fourteen (14) days from the entry date of this order, Mr. 

Mayfield must provide counsel for Defendant Vance all documents in his 

possession, custody, or control responsive to Defendant Vance’s Request for 

Production No. 2. 

3. Within seven days from the entry date of this Order, Defendant Vance 

may provide Mr. Mayfield a revised proposed medical release that is consistent with 

the parameters set forth in this Order. 

4. With seven days of receiving a revised medical release, Mr. Mayfield 

must either: (1) sign the revised medical release; or (2) file specific objections to the 

revised medical release--stating why he believes it seeks information that is not 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense or proportional to the needs in this case. 

SO ORDERED 8 February 2024. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:23-cv-00046-JM Document 151 Filed 02/08/24 Page 7 of 7