United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
currently an inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary,
brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Scott White,
Sheriff of Kearney County, alleging violations of his right
to medical care and equal protection when White ignored
Plaintiff's repeated requests for medical care for his
severe back pain while Plaintiff was being held at the
Kearney County Jail, presumably as a pretrial detainee.
Plaintiff alleges that Kearney County had a policy or custom
of deliberately disregarding black inmates' known,
objectively serious medical needs, and that he received
unfavorable and dissimilar treatment compared with that
afforded to his fellow white inmates. There are three motions
to Require Compliance With Subpoena
issued a subpoena to a third party, the Nebraska Department
of Correctional Services (“NDCS”), requesting
that it produce “[t]he complete inmate file” of
Plaintiff, including “all” medical documents,
nurses' notes, grievances, correspondence, “kites,
” classification documents, housing assignment
documents, disciplinary documents, mail sent and received,
video and audio recordings, phone call logs, and visitor logs
from March 12, 2015, to the present date, in addition to a
list of Plaintiff's cell mates during that time period.
objected to the subpoena, stating that Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 83-178(2)provides that inmate medical files can only
be released with Plaintiff's authorization or a court
order, and inmate institutional files can only be released
pursuant to a court order. (Filing 41-3.) See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 (procedures for issuing and objecting to
subpoenas). Defendant has now filed a Motion for Court Order
Requiring Compliance With Subpoena directing NDCS to produce
“all of the medical and institutional records”
for Plaintiff. (Filing 40.)
support of his motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff
himself requested his institutional record,  so “[i]t
follows” that “Plaintiff would not oppose
Defendants obtaining said records and subsequently submitting
said records . . . in supplemental discovery responses to
Plaintiff.” (Filing 41 at CM/ECF p. 2.)
Defendant also asserts that he must have access to all of
Plaintiff's medical and institutional records in order to
“fully and thoroughly defend” Plaintiff's
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the
scope of discovery allows parties to “obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case . . . .” If the proposed discovery falls
outside this scope, “the court must limit the frequency
or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by” the rules.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
Plaintiff's institutional medical records are relevant to
his constitutional claims. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132
F.3d 1234, 1240 (8th Cir. 1997) (considering prison medical
records as to issue of whether prison officials responded to
and provided treatment for inmate's medical needs);
Gard v. Dooley, No. 4:14-CV-04023, 2015 WL 9451044,
at *7 (D.S.D. Dec. 23, 2015) (“Institutional medical
records are regularly relied upon by the federal courts in
determining the merits of prisoner deliberate indifference
claims.”). However, Defendant's request for
Plaintiff's complete institutional file-including all
grievances, correspondence, “kites, ”
classification documents, housing assignment documents,
disciplinary documents, mail sent and received, video and
audio recordings, phone call logs, visitor logs, and a list
of Plaintiff's cell mates-is not proportional to the
needs of this case, as the request is not limited to those
items pertaining to Plaintiff's medical condition,
complaints, and treatment. See McGee v. Kurth, No.
2:14CV14, 2014 WL 6607007, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2014)
(request for inmate's entire file from Missouri
Department of Corrections was overly broad).
Defendant's institutional-record request goes beyond what
is relevant to this case, I will require NDCS to produce
Plaintiff's complete medical record from March 12, 2015,
to the present (¶¶ 1 & 2 of Filing
41-2, List of Documents and Other Stored Information
Requested), but I shall limit production of the remaining
materials (¶¶ 3-12) to those containing information
about Plaintiff's medical condition, Plaintiff's
medical complaints and responses thereto, and medical
treatment provided to (or denied) Plaintiff. Should there be
further disputes about production of this information that
cause Defendant to file additional motions to require NDCS to
comply with the discovery request, Defendant must certify
that he has “in good faith conferred or attempted to
confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or
discovery in an effort to obtain it without court
action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
has filed a Motion to Strike (Filing 47) several
discovery requests filed by Plaintiff (Filings 43, 44, 45,
because they were filed on March 22, 2017-well past the
January 9, 2017, deadline (Filing 39) for serving
interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for
production or inspection.
[Plaintiff] appears pro se, he is ‘bound by and must
comply with all local and federal procedural
rules.'” Muhammad v. Busboom, No.
4:15CV3136, 2017 WL 788340, at *1 (D. Neb. Jan. 23, 2017)
(quoting NEGenR 1.3(g)); see also Blair v. City of Omaha, No.
8:07CV295, 2009 WL 3631070, at *6 (D. Neb. Oct. 26, 2009),
aff'd on other grounds, 464 F. App'x 556 (8th Cir.
2012) (“Although Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, he is
not excused him from complying with the court's
Defendant's Motion to Strike will be granted, and
Plaintiff's discovery requests-filed two months late and
without a request to extend the discovery deadlines-shall be
stricken. Russell v. Am. Airlines, No. 8:08CV292,
2009 WL 2225814, at *1 (D. Neb. July 23, 2009) (denying pro
se plaintiff's motion to compel when motion was filed one
month after deadline and plaintiff did not request additional
time in which to serve discovery or file motion to compel).