Free Response to Discovery - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00269-SLR

Document 33

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE KENNETH SMITH, Plaintiff, v. STAN TAYLOR, THOMAS CARROLL, FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, INC., DAVID WILKERSON, and GAIL ELLER, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 07-269-SLR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT THOMAS CARROLL'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Defendant, Thomas Carroll, ("Answering Defendant") hereby responds to Plaintiff Kenneth Smith's Interrogatories: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or

documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 2. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require

supplementation of these responses beyond that required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). 3. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to place

duties upon them not set forth in, or contemplated by, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to seek

information or documents not in their possession, custody or control.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00269-SLR

Document 33

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 2 of 6

5.

Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek the production

of documents equally available to the Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel. Such documents will be identified by Answering Defendant but will not be produced. 6. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require

production of information or documents which are impractical or unduly burdensome to reproduce. 7. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek the production

of documents generated by or received from his counsel in connection with this litigation on or after the date of the acceptance of representation on the grounds that such documents are protected by attorney-client and work product privileges. RESPONSES1 1) Described prior to federal investigation, who evaluated or monitored

"Correctional Medical Services" performaces. RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad and does not specify a time frame. By way of further objection, this Interrogatory is not relevant to the allegations against Answering Defendant contained in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiver of the

foregoing general and specific objections, the medical contractor was required to achieve and maintain accreditation of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. ("NCCHC"). In the past, the Medical Review Committee ("MRC") provided contract oversight to the health care vendors and substance abuse treatment. 2) Explain the reponsibility too inmates under Title 11 Section 6536.

RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory seeks a legal analysis of a statute and not the discovery of information as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34.
1

Each Interrogatory typed exactly as received from Plaintiff, Kenneth Smith.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00269-SLR

Document 33

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 3 of 6

The statute speaks for itself. 3) Detail sources available to inmates after filing medical grievances, concerning

medical issues dealing with Correctional Medical Systems. RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, the established system for addressing medical issues is the Bureau Grievance process. SOP 4.4. 4) Outline evaluation process for Correctional Medical Services in it's providing

medical services too inmates. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1. 5) Who/how is it determined when inmate taken to outside specialist, should inmate

receive treatment prescribed by outside specialist. . RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is vague and unintelligible. Subject to and without wavier of the foregoing general and specific objections, an inmate requiring treatment by a medical specialist is a decision made by personnel of the contracted medical provider. As Warden of the Delaware Correctional Center, ("DCC"), I relied on the contracted medical provider to deliver health care services to inmates housed at the facility. 6) Name the agency(s) that evaluated Correctional Medical Services, contract

performance in providing medical services too inmates. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1. 7) Explain why since 1998 none of the recommendations of outside specialist

followed. Even when reached your desk, via grievance and personal letter process. RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is unclear and ambiguous. By way of further objection, this Interrogatory assumes facts and conclusions that Plaintiff has the burden to prove

3

Case 1:07-cv-00269-SLR

Document 33

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 4 of 6

and that are disputed and denied by Answering Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, and as previously noted, a determination that an inmate required treatment by a medical specialist was a decision made by personnel of the contracted medical provider. As Warden of the Delaware Correctional Center, I relied on the contracted medical provider to deliver health care services to inmates housed at the facility. 8) What did you base your decision, when denied plaintiff receiving treatment

ordered by specialist. RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory assumes facts and conclusions that Plaintiff has the burden to prove and that are disputed and denied by Answering Defendant. In particular, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant denied Plaintiff any treatment. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, and as previously noted, a determination that an inmate required treatment by a medical specialist was a decision made by personnel of the contracted medical provider. As Warden of the Delaware Correctional Center, I relied on the contracted medical provider to deliver health care services to inmates housed at the facility. 9) State the procedure in effect in March, 1998 at Delaware Correctional Center, for

final resolution of inmate grievances (medical). The aforemention means name of agencie(s) or medical contractors. RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is overbroad and ambiguous. Subject to and

without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objection, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this Interrogatory. 10) State the name(s) of persons within "DOC" responsible for monitoring contract

between DOC and Correctional Medical Systems.

4

Case 1:07-cv-00269-SLR

Document 33

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 5 of 6

RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1. AS TO OBJECTIONS:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE OF DELAWARE /s/ Stacey X. Stewart ______ Stacey X. Stewart, ID #4667 Deputy Attorney General Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street, 6TH Fl., Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8400 [email protected] Attorney for Defendant Carroll

Dated: June 5, 2008

5

Case 1:07-cv-00269-SLR

Document 33

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND/OR DELIVERY I hereby certify that on June 5, 2008, I electronically filed Defendant Tom Carroll's Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. On June 5, 2008, I have mailed by United States Postal Service, the document to the following nonregistered participant: Kenneth Smith SBI # 193906 Delaware Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, DE 19977

/s/ Stacey Stewart _____ Stacey Stewart, Bar ID#4667 Deputy Attorney General 820 N. French Street, 6th floor Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8400 [email protected] Attorney for Defendant Thomas Carroll

6

Case 1:07-cv-00269-SLR

Document 33-2

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 1 of 1