Spencer v. Brott
- David Doty
- 0:17-cv-05035
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Spencer v. Brott, Judge Leung partly granted medical-record discovery and granted Spencer’s COVID-19 continuance request.
Marvin Spencer must sign and return a limited authorization for release of his Sherburne County medical records. The medical defendants—Todd Leonard, M.D., Michelle Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England—must send the new authorization and may obtain the authorized records. All parties are affected by the 90-day continuation of the pretrial schedule and the requirement that each party bear its own costs and attorney fees.
What happened
Spencer v. Brott involves two cases in which Marvin Spencer alleges that medical defendants failed to provide adequate care while he was confined at the Sherburne County Jail, causing the loss of two toes and sight in his left eye.
The court granted the medical defendants’ motion to compel in part and denied it in part. Spencer must sign an authorization allowing release of his Sherburne County medical records, but the court denied the request to let the county provide copies directly to the defendants. The court also granted Spencer’s request for a continuance and extended existing pretrial dates by 90 days because of COVID-19 restrictions at his facility.
Judge Leung ordered the defendants to send a new, limited authorization and ordered Spencer to return it within seven days of receiving it. Each side must pay its own costs and attorney fees. The order did not decide whether Spencer’s medical-care claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Spencer v. Brott · No. 0:17-cv-05035
- David Doty
- May 13, 2020
Background
Marvin Spencer brought two actions alleging constitutional violations based on deliberate indifference to his medical needs while he was confined at the Sherburne County Jail in Minnesota. He alleged that Todd Leonard, M.D., Michelle Skroch, and Gwen Blossom England—the medical defendants involved in these motions—failed to provide adequate care and treatment, resulting in the loss of two toes and sight in his left eye. The opinion identifies Spencer as proceeding without a lawyer.
The court considered the medical defendants’ motion to compel medical authorizations and Spencer’s letter request for a continuance. The opinion states that Dr. Diana VanDerBeek had previously been voluntarily dismissed from both actions.
Motion to Compel Medical Authorizations
The medical defendants served Spencer with a request for production of documents asking him to sign an authorization permitting them to obtain his medical records. 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 the records or to allow Sherburne County to provide the defendants with copies directly.
The court concluded that Spencer had placed his physical condition at issue by alleging inadequate medical care. It therefore found his medical records from Sherburne County relevant to the claims and ordered Spencer to sign an authorization for their release.
The court 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 it and return it to the medical defendants. The court denied the request for an order allowing Sherburne County to provide copies of the records directly to the defendants. Each party was ordered to 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, and he lacked access to his legal materials and the law library. Although his letter mentioned only the first action, the court construed the request as applying to both actions.
The court found good cause to grant the request based on COVID-19 concerns and the specific conditions at Spencer’s facility. It granted the request and continued the existing dates in the pretrial schedule by 90 days. The court ordered that an amended pretrial scheduling order issue.
Disposition
Judge Leung ordered that the medical defendants’ motion to compel was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that Spencer’s letter request for a continuance was GRANTED. The order warned that failure to comply with the order or earlier consistent orders could lead to appropriate sanctions, including possible dismissal or default judgment. Those listed consequences were warnings about possible remedies, not additional rulings imposed by this order. The order did not decide the merits of Spencer’s constitutional medical-care claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.