Robinson v. Minnesota, State of
- David Doty
- 0:17-cv-00437
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Robinson v. Minnesota, Judge Menendez denied discovery and clarification requests, granted response requests, and left the summary-judgment motions undecided.
Tony Terrell Robinson and the defendants remaining in the case, including the defendants who filed summary-judgment motions and Dr. Dannewitz.
What happened
In Robinson v. Minnesota, Tony Terrell Robinson alleges that medical staff failed to properly diagnose and treat a broken foot and ankle while he was incarcerated. He asserts claims involving the Eighth Amendment, Minnesota medical-malpractice law, and emotional distress.
The court treated Robinson’s requests to delay summary judgment as requests for more time to obtain discovery, but found that he had not shown why the requested information was essential. It denied his motion to enlarge discovery tools without prejudice, denied his motion for clarification, granted his requests to respond, and gave him 30 days to respond to the pending summary-judgment motions.
Judge Menendez ordered defendants to answer or properly object to outstanding discovery and allowed them seven days to reply after Robinson’s responses are filed. The court did not decide the summary-judgment motions or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. Minnesota, State of · No. 0:17-cv-00437
- David Doty
- Apr. 3, 2020
Background
Tony Terrell Robinson alleges that he injured his right ankle and foot while playing basketball at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Lino Lakes. He received medical care and x-rays, but alleges that no fracture was identified or treated. After his release, later imaging allegedly showed a fracture that required surgery.
Robinson, who was proceeding without a lawyer and was in federal custody, sued medical staff. His claims include deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, Minnesota medical malpractice, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. One defendant had previously settled and was no longer involved. The remaining defendants filed motions for summary judgment while discovery was still ongoing.
Summary-Judgment Briefing
Robinson filed motions asking the court to deny the summary-judgment motions as premature or, alternatively, to give him more time to respond. The court treated those filings as requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which allows a court to postpone consideration of summary judgment when the opposing party needs additional discovery. The court held that Robinson had not shown how the information he sought was essential to opposing summary judgment. It therefore proceeded with the summary-judgment motions but gave Robinson an additional 30 days to file substantive responses. Defendants were allowed seven days to reply, and the court stated that no additional briefing would be permitted.
The court also stated that defendants must timely respond to Robinson’s outstanding discovery requests, or properly object to them. If valid discovery remained unanswered, that failure could provide a basis for denying the current summary-judgment motions without prejudice as prematurely filed. The court did not decide the summary-judgment motions in this order.
Other Motions and Order
The court denied Robinson’s motion for leave to enlarge his discovery tools without prejudice because he had not made a specific showing of what additional interrogatories or requests for admission he needed or why they were necessary.
The court denied Robinson’s motion for clarification because it requested no relief, while noting the clarifications contained in the filing.
The court granted Robinson’s motion for leave to respond to Dr. Dannewitz’s motion to stay expert discovery and required him to respond within 30 days. The court deferred ruling on Robinson’s motion to appoint an expert until the motion to stay expert discovery was fully briefed.
The court granted, with modifications, Robinson’s motion for leave to respond to the summary-judgment motions. Robinson had 30 days to respond to all three pending summary-judgment motions, and defendants had seven days after those responses were docketed to reply. The court then would consider the summary-judgment motions and Robinson’s motions to deny them as premature.
Disposition
The order denied without prejudice the motion for leave to enlarge discovery tools; granted the motion for leave to respond to the motion to stay expert discovery; denied the motion for clarification; and granted, with modifications, the motion for leave to respond to the summary-judgment motions. It also required defendants to respond or properly object to outstanding discovery. The order was procedural and did not resolve the merits of Robinson’s claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.