UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERONICA RAYNOR, Individually and as : the Personal Representative of the : Estate of Reuel Griffin , : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 14-0750 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 111 : DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. , : : Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
G RANTING IN P ART AND D ENYING IN P ART D EFENDANT D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA ’ S M OTION TO C OMPEL P LAINTIFF ’ S R ESPONSES TO D EFENDANTS ’ R EQUEST FOR P RODUCTION OF D OCUMENTS On August 15, 2017, the District of C olumbia (the “District”) f iled a motion to compel responses to various document requests. See ECF No. 111. The next day, a status conference was held at which aspects of the motion were discussed. See Status Conference Tr., ECF No. 113. Following the status confer ence, Plaintiff filed an Oppos ition to the Motion, see Pl.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 116, and the District subsequently filed a replyin support of its motion, see Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 119. For t he reasons stated below, the C ourt grants that motion in part and denies the motion in part.
A. Document Request No. 4 - Medical Releases In Request No. 4, Defendants requested the following: With regard to any medical or hospital records of the Plaintiff referred to in Request No. 3 above which are in existence , but are not physically in the p ossession or custody of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s a ttorney, but which are in the Pla intiff’s control, the District Requests that the Plaintiff execu te medical authorizations to a llow the Defendant to obtain copies of each doctor, hosp ital or other medical facilit y records. Authorizations forms are attached; please complete and execute the authorizati on forms.2 Def.’s Request for Production of Documents (“Def.’s Requests”) at 12–13, ECF No. 111-1. Plaintiff objected to this reque st as beyond the scope of Rule 26 and directed the District to records identified in response to other Requests. The District argues that this response was inadequate. At the August 16, 2017 s tatus conference, the Cour t ordered that Plaintiffs needed to provide authorizations “for al l kinds of care” for “all provide rs that the District has provided a basis to believe that the decedent received care there.” Statu s Conference Tr. at 28:22–28. The Court emphasized, however, that it would not “require the waive r unless [the District] ha[s] some reason to believe [the decedent] actually received care at a specific facility or provider ,” otherwise the District’s re quest would amount to nothing more t han “a fishing expedition.” Status Conference Tr. at 30:11–16 (emphasis added). According to the parties’ Octobe r 2, 2017 status report, Plaint iff has provided executed health authorizations for AlphaDiagnostics, Allstate Clinical Laboratories, Washington Hospital Center, United Medical Center a nd Howard University Hospital. 1 See Joint Status Report at 4–6, ECF No. 124. Accordingly, this issu e is moot as to those facil ities. However, the District continues to argue that this C ourt should order Plaintiff to pr oduce medical releases for five other area hospitals as well. See Joint Status Report at 4–6; Def .’s Reply at 3. The District ar gues that the parties have exchanged records showing that the decedent wa s sent outside of St. Elizabeths Hospital to receive medical care during a time period when “St. Elizabeths Hospital was sending patients out for similar medical s ervices [to] the [five] other area hospitals.” Def.’s Reply at 3.

1 According to the Joint Status Report, “Plaintiff’s counsel in dicated [that] he learned that [decedent] was treated for [a] gunshot wound at Howard Universi ty Hospital, but the authorizations [Plaintiff’s couns el] sent with that email [did] not include a witness signature.” Joint Status Report at 5. The parties, however, dispute whethe r or not a witness signature is actually required. Whatever the case may be, the parties shoul d coordinate with one another and with Howard University Hospital to ensure that the authorizatio n is effective.3 But this does not meet the level of specificity that the Court required in its order on August 16. While this may suggest that the de cedent was treated at one fac ility or another, the District offers no basis to believe that he was treated at any specific facility. Accordingly, the Court will not require the Plaintiff to authori ze the release of records from the other five area hospitals.
B. Document Request Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 18 The District also moves to compel the production of additional documents responsive to Document Request Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18. See Def.’s Mot. at 9–15. In response, Plaintiffs asserted that it has already complied with these req uests and that “no document has been withheld,” thus “there is no thing to compel.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 3. The District does not quarrel with this assertion, rathe r the District argues that th e “unequivocal, clear answers that Plaintiff conveyed in her Oppos ition were not part of her respo nse to these requests.” Def.’s Reply at 4. Accordingly, the Dis trict urges this Court to orde r Plaintiffs to amend her earlier responses to conform with the r esponses she presented in her Op position. The Court, however is satisfied with the clarification that Plaintiff made in the Opp osition. The District can hardly complain at this point that it is does not know whether any doc uments responsive to these requests are being with held—they are not. 2
C. Request No. 19 - § 12-309 Letter In Request 19, the District requ ested “[a]ny document which Pla intiff claims meets the statutory requirement of a dema nd letter pursuant to D.C. Code § 12-309.” Defs.’ Requests at 16. Plaintiff objected, claiming t hat Defendants already had p ossession of Plaintiff’s § 12-309

2 With respect to Request No. 12, the District argued that it is “concerned that Plaintiff is withholding copies of the deceden t’s x-ray films that Defendant s have been otherwise unable to obtain.” Def.’s Mot. at 11. Pla intiff, however, has asserted that she has produced everything she has in her possession. The Cour t sees nothing in the record in dicating that Pla intiff’s Counsel has any x-ray films that have not been produced.4 demand letters and now argues that she has no letters other tha n those that have already been served on Defendant. Pl.’s Opp’n at 7. While that may be true , they are admittedly documents in her possession and are responsiv e to the requests. Thus, Pl aintiff must produce them. For the foregoing reasons, Defe ndant District of Columbia’s Mo tion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Defenda nts’ Request for Production of Documents (ECF No. 111) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART . It is hereby:
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall produce t o the District of Columbia any a nd all documents that Plaintiff claims meets the statutory requirement of a demand letter pursuant to D.C. Code § 12-309 within tw o weeks of this Order.
SO ORDERED

. Dated: November 3, 2017 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge