Spencer v. Brott
- Tony Leung
- 0:17-cv-05220
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Spencer v. Brott, Judge Leung ordered medical authorization, granted a continuance, and partly granted discovery relief.
Marvin Spencer must sign and return a limited authorization for his Sherburne County medical records. Todd Leonard, Michelle Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England must send the authorization and envelope within seven days. The parties’ pretrial schedule in both actions will be continued by 90 days, and each side must bear its own costs and attorney fees.
What happened
Spencer v. Brott involves Marvin Spencer’s two lawsuits alleging that medical providers failed to adequately treat his medical needs while he was confined at the Sherburne County Jail. He alleges that this caused the loss of two toes and sight in his left eye.
The medical defendants asked Spencer to sign an authorization allowing them to obtain his Sherburne County medical records. The court ordered Spencer to sign and return a limited authorization, but denied the request to let Sherburne County send the records directly to the defendants. The court also granted Spencer’s request for a continuance because COVID-19 restrictions prevented him from accessing his legal materials and the law library.
Judge Leung granted the motion to compel in part and denied it in part, granted Spencer’s continuance request, and ordered the existing pretrial dates continued by 90 days. Each side must pay its own costs and attorney fees.
The detailed version
- Spencer v. Brott · No. 0:17-cv-05220
- Tony Leung
- May 13, 2020
Background
Marvin Spencer brought two actions, identified as Spencer I and Spencer II, alleging constitutional violations based on deliberate indifference to his medical needs while he was confined at the Sherburne County Jail. He alleges that Todd Leonard, M.D., Michelle Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England failed to provide adequate care and treatment, resulting in the loss of two toes and sight in his left eye. The order addresses those defendants’ motion to compel medical authorizations and Spencer’s request for a continuance. Spencer was litigating without a lawyer.
Motion to Compel
The medical defendants had served Spencer with a request for documents that included a medical authorization. Spencer had not responded, and he did not respond to the motion to compel. The defendants asked the court either to require Spencer to authorize release of his medical records or to allow Sherburne County to provide copies of those records directly to them.
The court explained that discovery generally includes nonprivileged information relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs. Because Spencer placed his physical condition at issue by alleging inadequate medical care, the court found that his Sherburne County medical records were relevant.
The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel. Within seven days of the order, the medical defendants had to send Spencer a new authorization and a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The authorization could seek only medical records from Sherburne County. Within seven days after receiving it, Spencer had to sign and date the authorization and return it to the medical defendants. The court denied the request to allow Sherburne County to send copies of Spencer’s medical records directly to the defendants. Each party must bear its own costs and attorney fees.
Continuance Request
Spencer requested a continuance because the facility where he was confined was on lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving him without access to his legal materials or the law library. Although his letter mentioned only Spencer I, the court construed the request as applying to Spencer II as well.
The court found good cause based on the documented COVID-19 concerns and the conditions at Spencer’s facility. It granted the continuance request and continued the existing pretrial-scheduling dates by 90 days. An amended pretrial scheduling order was to issue.
Order and Potential Consequences
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered compliance with the medical-authorization deadlines and stated that failure to comply with the order or other consistent prior orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions. The order listed possible consequences, including costs, fines, attorney fees and disbursements, waiver of objections, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, complete or partial dismissal with prejudice, and whole or partial default judgment. These were identified as potential remedies for noncompliance, not as rulings that those consequences had occurred.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.