Filed: Feb. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . At Wilmington this 11 day of February, 2019, having considered Plaintiff's motion to compel (D.I. 33), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED for the reasons that follow; 1. On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff served a first request for production of documents upon Defendant seeking a complete copy of Plaintiff's medical records and medical grievances from June 1, 2014 to present. (D.I. 31). 2. Defendant responded and objected to the
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . At Wilmington this 11 day of February, 2019, having considered Plaintiff's motion to compel (D.I. 33), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED for the reasons that follow; 1. On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff served a first request for production of documents upon Defendant seeking a complete copy of Plaintiff's medical records and medical grievances from June 1, 2014 to present. (D.I. 31). 2. Defendant responded and objected to the ..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.
At Wilmington this 11 day of February, 2019, having considered Plaintiff's motion to compel (D.I. 33),
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED for the reasons that follow;
1. On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff served a first request for production of documents upon Defendant seeking a complete copy of Plaintiff's medical records and medical grievances from June 1, 2014 to present. (D.I. 31).
2. Defendant responded and objected to the request on April 10, 2018, because the request sought documents not in its possession or control. Defendant nevertheless produced to Plaintiff 384 pages — medical records, grievances and decisions related to the grievances that Defendant had obtained from the Delaware Department of Correction pursuant to subpoena. (D.I. 36, D.I. 45).
3. While Defendant did not timely respond to the request, it is not required to produce documents that are not in its possession or control. The Court has reviewed the documents it produced to Plaintiff and finds that it adequately responded to Plaintiff's first request for production of documemnts.
