Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lonn v. Corizon Health

United States District Court, D. Idaho

October 27, 2016

DAVID KARL LONN, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH, DR. APRIL DAWSON, DR. DAVID AGLER, and DR. KLINT STANDER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Honorable Candy W. Dale, United States Magistrate Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are Plaintiff's motions to compel and to extend deadlines, which contend Defendant Agler's discovery responses are inadequate and more time is required to conduct discovery. (Dkt. 75, 76.) Since the filing of Plaintiff's motions, Defendant Agler filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 78.)[1]

         Plaintiff's motions are now ripe. Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding delay, and because the Court conclusively finds the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this matter will be decided on the record without oral argument. The Court issues the following order denying Plaintiff's motions.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution based upon deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. With regard to Defendant Agler, the only remaining claims against him that the Court allowed to proceed relate to Dr. Agler's care of Plaintiff rendered in November of 2012 and January of 2014. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Agler was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, claiming Dr. Agler discontinued all of pain medications in November 2012 and otherwise failed to provide him treatment for his osteoarthritis in his right hip in November 2012 and January 2014. (Dkt. 44, p. 6 and Dkt. 72, p. 3; Dkt. 64, p. 5.)

         DISPOSITION

         1. Discovery Standards

         A. Meet and Confer

         Dr. Agler argues Plaintiff did not properly meet and confer before filing the motion to compel. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) requires a motion to compel to contain a certification that the movant 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 the information without court intervention. The Court's local rules define “confer, ” which means “to speak directly with opposing counsel or a self-represented litigant in person or by telephone, to identify and discuss disputed issues and to make a reasonable effort to resolve the disputed issues. The sending of an electronic or voice-mail communication does not satisfy the requirement to ‘confer.'” Dist. Idaho L. Rule 37.1.[2]

         Plaintiff's motion does not contain the required certification, and there is no indication Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with opposing counsel, either by telephone or by any other means, prior to the filing of the motion to compel. On those grounds alone, the motion, and the accompanying motion to extend the discovery deadline, may be denied.

         Nonetheless, given Plaintiff is filing this matter without the aid of counsel, the Court reviewed the merits of the motion.

         B. R ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.