IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Robert A. Snead,

Plaintiff

 v.

Gary C. Mohr, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:12-cv-00739

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge Abel

Order

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on plaintiff Robert A. Snead’s

September 9, 2013 motion to compel discovery (doc. 55).

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to produce for inspection and

copying the documents requested in his February 13 and June 25, 2013 requests and

complete and truthful answers to the interrogatories in his May 13, 2013 request.

Plaintiff maintains that defendant failed to provide responses to his February 13

requests within thirty days. When defendants eventually responded, they objected to

one request and failed to fulfill the other request. Plaintiff maintains that their responses

have been less than truthful. Despite intermittent communications between plaintiff

and counsel for defendants, no discovery has been conducted, nor have the objections

been resolved. 

1

Case: 2:12-cv-00739-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/01/13 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Plaintiff maintains that answers to his May 13 request for interrogatories were

less than truthful, riddled with objections and contradicted statements that the

defendant had made previously. Defendants failed to respond to plaintiff’s June 25

request for production of documents, nor did they seek an extension from the Court or

contact plaintiff. By failing to respond, plaintiff argues that defendants have waived any

objections to the discovery requests. 

In response, defendants maintain that previous counsel responded to plaintiff’s

February 13 first request for production of documents on March 20, 2013 with

reasonable objections and denials. On March 25, 2013, Snead acknowledged receipt of

the responses and asked to meet with counsel to resolve the objections. Snead also

complained of not having enough time to go through his medical file and not receiving

responses to interrogatories directed to Dr. Weil. On April 2, previous counsel informed

plaintiff that he had not received any interrogatories for Dr. Weil. On April 7, Snead

acknowledged that he had failed to send the interrogatories. Snead indicated that he

wanted to review his medical file as quickly as possible and hoped to meet with counsel

to discuss the objections. On April 23, Snead asked why he had not a response to his

April 7 letter and requested that counsel instruct prison officials on how they should

conduct the inspection and copying of files. On May 13, Snead sent his request for

interrogatories to Dr. Weil.

On June 13, 2013, current counsel sent Snead a letter acknowledging receipt of

the interrogatories and requesting a thirty-day extension of time in which to respond.

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00739-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/01/13 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Counsel for defendants informed Snead of the process under which an inmate may

obtain copies of their medical file. Counsel encouraged Snead to contact the Health Care

Administrator and to follow the procedure outlined in the policy; steps that Snead had

apparently failed to follow despite instruction from defendants’ previous counsel. 

On July 23, 2013, defendants forward Dr. Weil’s responses to the interrogatories.

Snead did not object to any of the responses provided by Dr. Weil. On August 1, 2013,

Snead reviewed his entire medical file and tagged 217 pages for copying. The records

were sent to plaintiff on September 5, 2013. Plaintiff has not sent any further

correspondence to counsel.

Counsel for defendants acknowledges that plaintiff did not receive a timely

response to his July 5, 2013 Second Request for the Production of Documents. Counsel

maintains that the principal reason for the failure to respond is that many of the

requests were for portions of Snead’s medical file, which plaintiff had not yet reviewed.

Counsel also acknowledges that his failure to provide responses or objections was

inexcusable error and states that he will provide reasonable objections and/or

responses to the requests within the next thirty days. 

Counsel for defendants received interrogatories for Dr. Weil on May 15, 2013. On

June 13, 2013, counsel requested a thirty day extension of time in which to respond to

the interrogatories. Snead consented to the extension. Counsel mailed the responses to

Snead on July 23, 2013, and acknowledges that the responses were ten days late.

Defendants maintain, however, plaintiff made no objection to the quality or content of

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00739-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/01/13 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
the responses. Defendants argue that Rule 37(a)(1) requires that a motion to compel

discovery include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or

attempted to confer with the party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to

obtain it without court action. Defendants argue that plaintiff made no such attempt to

confer with counsel regarding his requests for product of documents or his

dissatisfaction with Dr. Weil’s interrogatory responses. 

In his reply in support of his motion to compel, plaintiff concedes that he made

no attempt to contact counsel for defendant regarding Dr. Weil’s responses to the

interrogatories and withdraws that portion of his motion. He also received part of his

medical file, but he maintains that he did not receive electronic copies of the MRIs and

x-rays that he requested. Plaintiff also contends that he did not receive the notes

reviewing his August 27, 2012 x-ray. Plaintiff argues that it was not his responsibility to

schedule an opportunity to review his medical file. 

Discussion. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED in part. Although plaintiff

maintains that he has not received all of the medical records that he requested, it is not

clear what specific documents he maintains are missing. Defendant is ORDERED to

produce copies of plaintiff’s MRIs and x-rays in addition to the notes reviewing his

August 27, 2012 x-ray. To the extent that plaintiff seeks additional records, he should

provide defendant’s counsel with a specific list of the documents that he contends are

missing from the production of documents he received prior to filing any future motion

to compel. 

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00739-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/01/13 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Counsel for defendants acknowledged that he did not provide a timely response

to plaintiff’s July 5, 2013 Second Request for the Production of Documents and stated

that he would provide reasonable objections and/or responses to the requests by

October 28, 2013. If counsel for defendants has not already provided the responses, he is

ORDERED to do so immediately. 

Although plaintiff failed to attempt to resolve the dispute regarding Dr. Weil’s

responses to the interrogatories extrajudicially, I will address plaintiff’s objections to Dr.

Weil’s responses. In Interrogatory No, 2, plaintiff asked Dr. Weil how many complaints

had been filed against him regarding the quality or quantity of medical he provided. Dr.

Weil responded that he did not recall any specific complaints being filed against him.

Plaintiff maintains that this is disingenuous given that he has filed such complaints

against Dr. Weil. Dr. Weil’s response is insufficient. It does not appear that he made any

effort to determine whether any informal complaints or formal grievances have been

filed against him. Dr. Weil should contact the office responsible for maintaining

prisoner grievances and inquire how many informal complaints or grievances

concerning the quantity or quality of medical care. If those records are no longer in

existence, counsel should provide a detailed explanation as to how these records are

maintained. 

Plaintiff’s objection to Dr. Weil’s response to Interrogatory No. 3 is without

merit. Plaintiff’s interrogatory presents a hypothetical question regarding the course of

action Dr. Weil would take if presented with a hematoma at an inguinal hernia site.

5

Case: 2:12-cv-00739-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/01/13 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Plaintiff contends that Dr. Weil’s response that Snead did not have a hematoma is

inconsistent with his medical records and is not responsive to his question. Snead is free

to point out inconsistencies between his responses to the interrogatory and his medical

treatment notes, but Dr. Weil adequately responded to the hypothetical situation

presented by the interrogatory. 

Interrogatory No. 4 sought the names of all people with whom Dr. Weil

discussed plaintiff’s medical care. Dr. Weil did not recall discussing Snead’s medical

care with anyone. Plaintiff, however, points to the November 16, 2011 Decision of the

Chief Inspector on a Grievance Appeal, which indicates that the Mona Parks reviewed

Snead’s medical file with Dr. Weil. Doc. 40-1 at PageID# 496. If Dr. Weil can recall any

further discussions he may have had regarding plaintiff’s treatment, he should so state. 

In Interrogatory No. 6, plaintiff asks who influenced his decision to lessen the

care provided to plaintiff and whether monetary concerns played a role. Dr. Weil

responded that there was no decision to lessen the quality of quantity of care provided

to Snead, and monetary concerns or other variables did not factor into any such

decision. Plaintiff relies on the newspaper articles citing the reduction in prisoner

medical care expenses and argues that it was impossible for the prison to reduce its

costs without a decrease in care. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. If plaintiff wants to

seek further discovery from defendants on how such costs savings were realized, he

may do so. The fact that costs were reduced does not necessarily mean that Dr. Weil

reduced the quality medical care provided to plaintiff.

6

Case: 2:12-cv-00739-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/01/13 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Plaintiff’s objection to Dr. Weil’s response to Interrogatory No. 11 is also without

merit. Dr. Weil indicated that the fact a patient must be an inmate has no impact on his

provision of appropriate and adequate medical care. No further response is necessary.

Plaintiff Robert A. Snead’s September 9, 2013 motion to compel discovery (doc.

55) is GRANTED in part. 

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., and

Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within fourteen (14) days

after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the

Order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District

Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to

be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge

7

Case: 2:12-cv-00739-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/01/13 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>