Filed: Apr. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . John Morris seeks to compel responses to his outstanding discovery requests, contending that plaintiff's single-page letter refusing to sign a HIPAA authorization is manifestly deficient. Doc. 18. 1 In lieu of opposing defendant's motion, plaintiff submitted responses to the interrogatories. Doc. 19. Those responses did not include a HIPAA authorization or responsive documents, despite representing that he "will" sign an authorization and attesti
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . John Morris seeks to compel responses to his outstanding discovery requests, contending that plaintiff's single-page letter refusing to sign a HIPAA authorization is manifestly deficient. Doc. 18. 1 In lieu of opposing defendant's motion, plaintiff submitted responses to the interrogatories. Doc. 19. Those responses did not include a HIPAA authorization or responsive documents, despite representing that he "will" sign an authorization and attestin..
More
ORDER
JAMES E. GRAHAM, Magistrate Judge.
John Morris seeks to compel responses to his outstanding discovery requests, contending that plaintiff's single-page letter refusing to sign a HIPAA authorization is manifestly deficient. Doc. 18.1 In lieu of opposing defendant's motion, plaintiff submitted responses to the interrogatories. Doc. 19. Those responses did not include a HIPAA authorization or responsive documents, despite representing that he "will" sign an authorization and attesting to a "head injury, abrasions to the right temporal area and back pain" and claiming ongoing "massive headaches, back pains throughout [his] back, a lot of pain & suffering, [and] emotional distress." Id. at 1-2. Defendant's motion is, obviously, GRANTED in part.2
In this excessive force case, plaintiff has put his medical condition at issue but has thus far refused to litigate his case or demonstrate that he was, indeed, injured. Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to defendant's requests for production of documents and return a signed HIPAA authorization to permit defendant to request his medical records within 14 days of service of this Order to comply with his discovery obligations. If Harris does not, defendant is DIRECTED to so apprise the Court and a recommendation of dismissal will be entered on inactivity and, thus, abandonment grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing district courts to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order); L.R. 41.1(c) (authorizing district court to dismiss for lack of prosecution); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Collins v. Lake Helen, L.P., 249 F. App'x 116, 120 (11th Cir. 2007) ("[D]istrict court[s] possesses the inherent power to police [their] docket[s]" and to prune out those cases left to languish by their litigants).
One further matter: Harris submitted his untimely response to defendant's interrogatories to this Court for filing on the docket, and apparently assumes defendant will review the docket in search of his discovery responses. Doc. 19. This Court is not a repository for plaintiff's discovery responses. It has no role in collecting or organizing plaintiff's discovery responses. If Harris needs to serve discovery on defendants, he must do so pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
