Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HARRY MICHAEL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

MORRIS YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Objections to Defendant’s Medical

Records Demand; Motion for Protective Order; and, Notice of Defendant’s Limited

Waiver of Medical Records,” (Doc. 54); Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Order

(Doc. 53), Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Interrogatories on Defendant Morris

Young as to Interrogatories #2, 7, and 15,” (Doc. 55); and Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel

Defendant Sutton’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories, and Motion for

Evidentiary Hearing on False Answers.” (Doc. 56.) Defendants have filed a response.

(Doc. 60.) Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Extending the Deadline of the Case

Management and Scheduling Order,” (Doc. 58); a “Motion for Form(s) AO 88B

Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of

Premises in a Civil Action,” (Doc. 59); and a “Motion to Compel an Answer to This

Court’s Order to Show Cause.” (Doc. 65.) Defendants have responded to the motions.

(Docs. 61, 62, 66.) For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions are due to be granted

in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff first requests that the Court issue a protective order, arguing that
Page 2 of 6

Defendant Young’s request that Plaintiff execute a waiver “to obtain all his medical

records over a lifetime, is overly broad, vague and unduly burdensome.” (Doc. 54, at

1.) Plaintiff requests that the Court limit disclosure “of only those medical records

relevant to the injuries alleged and sustained by Plaintiff within the Amended

Complaint,” and attaches a “limited authorization” for release of “[o]nly those health

records related to head trauma, loss of sight, eye examinations, injury from that certain

assault occurring in the Gadsden County Jail on or about July 15, 2007.” Id. at 2, 9. 

Defendants respond that they at no time requested Plaintiff’s medical records “over a

lifetime.” Rather, Defendants served two interrogatories that requested Plaintiff to 1)

identify each injury he claimed was a result of the incident in his Complaint, and which

injuries he claimed were permanent, and 2) state whether he had ever complained to a

healthcare provider about the parts of his body that he claimed were injured in the

incident in the Complaint. (Doc. 60, at 2.) The Court finds that these interrogatories

are reasonable and appropriately tailored to lead to discoverable evidence. The Court

also finds that Plaintiff’s proposed limited release excessively narrows the scope of

discovery by limiting the release to only those records following the alleged assault. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is due to be denied, and Plaintiff

must sign the medical releases provided by Defendant if he has not already done so.

Plaintiff next requests reconsideration of the Court’s Order, Doc. 53, in which the

Court permitted Plaintiff to serve additional interrogatories on Defendant Young but

determined that three of the proposed interrogatories were overbroad and burdensome. 

Plaintiff proposes new, limited interrogatories in place of the three challenged

interrogatories—Nos. 2, 7, and 15—and requests that these interrogatories be served. 

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ
Page 3 of 6

Plaintiff also objects to the Court’s ruling that Plaintiff be required to pay the costs of

copying documents that are responsive to his discovery requests. Defendant Young

responds that he served full and complete answers to all of Plaintiff’s interrogatories

except for the three challenged interrogatories on September 24, 2012. (Doc. 60, at 4.) 

Defendant Young asserts no objection to service of Plaintiff’s three proposed amended

interrogatories, and states that he was in the process of responding to those

interrogatories at the time of filing his response. The Court finds, accordingly, that

Plaintiff’s request to serve the three amended interrogatories—Nos. 2, 7, and 15— is

due to be granted. The Court additionally finds that no good cause has been shown to

modify its Order requiring Plaintiff to pay copying costs for documents that are

responsive to his discovery requests. Plaintiff’s request that the Court reconsider this

requirement is due to be denied.

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Sutton to answer his second set of

interrogatories, and requests an evidentiary hearing on what he terms as Defendant

Sutton’s “false answers” to his first set of interrogatories. Plaintiff asserts that he “has

received back 14 mailings indicating no such person, no such address, undeliverable,

no forwarding and one request was returned by certified mail that Dr. Sutton had never

been associated with ‘Northside Medical Center.’” (Doc. 56, at 2.) 

Initially, Defendants note that Dr. Sutton answered Plaintiff’s second set of

interrogatories on September 19, 2012, and accordingly Plaintiff’s motion to compel is

due to be denied as moot. With respect to Dr. Sutton’s purportedly false answers,

Defendants assert that Dr. Sutton provided Plaintiff with a current copy of her

curriculum vitae, which lists employment dating to 1984. With an almost thirty-year

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ
Page 4 of 6

employment history, it is reasonable to assume that certain of Dr. Sutton’s prior

employers could have moved or closed, such that Plaintiff would be unable to contact

them by mail. Defendants also note that Plaintiff’s “mailings” to these employers

appear to have been the subpoenas that the Court explicitly ordered Plaintiff not to mail

without the permission of the Court. (Docs. 39, 41, 43, 44.) Plaintiff has provided no

evidence whatsoever that Dr. Sutton’s responses to his first set of interrogatories were

false, and his allegations to the contrary are speculative and conclusory. Accordingly,

the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing on this issue is due to

be denied.

Plaintiff next requests that the Court extend the deadlines of the Case

Management and Scheduling Order, Doc. 49, by 180 days, and asks for a new

discovery deadline of May 9, 2013. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have been nonresponsive to his discovery requests, and repeats his allegation that Defendant Sutton’s

discovery responses contain “inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and contradictions.” (Doc.

58, at 3.) 

In response, Defendants assert that they have fully complied with all of Plaintiff’s

discovery requests, with the exception of the amended interrogatories Nos. 2, 7, and

15. Defendants assert that they were in the process of complying with the amended

interrogatories at the time of filing their response. The Court finds that in light of

Defendant’s representations of compliance, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time

is due to be denied. No extension of time is required for Plaintiff to conduct additional

discovery on the “inconsistencies” in Dr. Sutton’s discovery responses for the reasons

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ
Page 5 of 6

stated above.

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue the following subpoenas to non-parties: 1)

Notice of Production and Subpoena to the Florida Sheriff’s Self-Insurance Fund, and 2)

Notice of Production and Subpoena to the Board of County Commissioners of Gadsden

County. As noted, the Court previously ordered Plaintiff to cease sending subpoenas to

non-parties without permission of the Court, and cautioned Plaintiff that he must be

specific about what records he seeks from non-parties to justify issuance of a

subpoena. Plaintiff now specifies that he seeks insurance information from the Florida

Sheriff’s Self-Insurance Fund, specifically whether Dr. Sutton was insured at the time of

the alleged incident. He seeks information about the Sheriff’s budget from the Board of

County Commissioners. Defendants have stated that they do not object to this request. 

Accordingly, this motion is due to be granted.

Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendants to respond to the

Court’s Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff also requests that the Court direct

Defendant Young to answer his amended interrogatories Nos. 2, 7, and 15, and that the

Court hold an evidentiary hearing on Dr. Sutton’s “false answers” to Plaintiff’s

interrogatories. Defendants have responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

(Doc. 60.) In response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants assert that they fully complied

with all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, including serving answers to the three amended

interrogatories on November 9, 2012. (Doc. 66, at 1.) Plaintiff has not shown good

cause for an evidentiary hearing on Dr. Sutton’s allegedly “false answers,” for the

reasons stated above. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied.

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ
Page 6 of 6

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Objections to Defendant’s Medical Records Demand; Motion for

Protective Order; and, Notice of Defendant’s Limited Waiver of Medical

Records,” Doc. 54, is DENIED. Plaintiff must sign the waiver for release

of medical records proposed by Defendants if he has not already done so.

(2) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Order (Doc. 53), Motion for

Leave to Serve Amended Interrogatories on Defendant Morris Young as

to Interrogatories #2, 7, and 15,” Doc. 55, is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

in Doc. 53 is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve amended

interrogatories on Defendant Young is granted.

(3) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Defendant Sutton’s Answer to Plaintiff’s

Second Set of Interrogatories, and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on

False Answers,” Doc. 56, is DENIED.

(4) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extending the Deadline of the Case Management

and Scheduling Order,” Doc. 58, is DENIED.

(5) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Form(s) AO 88B Subpoena to Produce Documents,

Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil

Action,” Doc. 59, is GRANTED. The Clerk must issue the requested

subpoenas to the Florida Sheriff’s Self-Insurance Fund and the Board of

County Commissioners of Gadsden County.

(6) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel an Answer to This Court’s Order to Show

Cause, Doc. 65, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30 day of January 2013. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ