IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

James J. Prince,

Plaintiff

 v.

Dr. Cha, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:13-cv-00035

Judge Watson

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on defendants’ unopposed January 30,

2014 motion to compel (doc. 52).

Interrogatory No. 5. Interrogatory No. 5 asks plaintiff to provide the names,

addresses and dates of treatment by all medical providers who have treated plaintiff in

the last ten years. Plaintiff responded that Dr. Keaton had all of his medical records and

releases. Defendants maintain that plaintiff’s response fails to identify the names,

addresses and date of treatment for all medical providers for the last ten years and that

without this information, it will be impossible for defendants to obtain all of the

necessary medical records.

Plaintiff’s response is not sufficient. Plaintiff is ORDERED to fully respond to the

interrogatory. He cannot simply rely on the records that have already been submitted to

Dr. Cha. Additionally, plaintiff must identify all medical providers and dates of

1

Case: 2:13-cv-00035-MHW-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 04/04/14 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
treatment; he cannot simply identify the medical providers that he believes have

relevant records.

Document Request No. 3. Document Request No. 3 seeks medical releases

sufficient in number and scope to obtain the complete medical records of each

physician, hospital, or medical treatment facility identified in answers to any

interrogatories. Plaintiff responded that Dr. Keaton had already obtained all medical

releases and medical records from Denver Health and ABQ Healthcare. Defendants

maintain that this request is insufficient because it allows plaintiff to determine what

medical records are relevant.

Plaintiff’s response is not sufficient. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide medical

releases for all of the medical providers identified in Interrogatory No. 5. Plaintiff

cannot simply rely on the records that have already been submitted to Dr. Cha.

Defendants are ORDERED to provide copies to plaintiff of the medical records they

obtain using the releases.

Interrogatories Nos. 8 & 9. Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9 ask plaintiff to disclose all

civil lawsuits in which he has been involved and any criminal charges that have been

filed against him. Plaintiff responded that defendants should conduct a Freedom of

Information Act request to the State of Michigan. 

Plaintiff’s request is insufficient. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply

to state agencies. Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to these interrogatories.

2

Case: 2:13-cv-00035-MHW-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 04/04/14 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Conclusion. For the reasons stated above, defendants’ unopposed January 30,

2014 motion to compel (doc. 52) is GRANTED.

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

3

Case: 2:13-cv-00035-MHW-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 04/04/14 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>