Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00328-SLR

Document 23

Filed 08/31/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ERNEST A. CRUMP, JR., Plaintiff, v. STAN TAYLOR, THOMAS CARROLL, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, DAVID DUNINGTON, MICHAEL BRYANT, JOHN DOE #3, JANE DOE #1 and JOHN DOE #4, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civ. No. 04-328 SLR

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MOTION OF DEFENDANT, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Correctional Medical Services, (hereinafter "CMS"), by its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Honorable Court to enter the attached Order, granting a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) in its favor and against plaintiff and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. The case at bar involves an allegation that plaintiff was confined to a "RAM

ROOM" for five days at the institutional hospital. Plaintiff alleges that he came under the care of CMS at this time. 2. On August 16, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Discovery Request. D.I. #20. On August

22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Request for Admissions, D.I. #21, and on August 25, 2005, Plaintiff filed his First Set of Interrogatories. D.I. #22. All three discovery requests were directed to CMS. 3. On August 30, 2005, CMS filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted as CMS was not the medical services provider for Delaware prisons at the time of the incident alleged in plaintiff's Complaint.

Case 1:04-cv-00328-SLR

Document 23

Filed 08/31/2005

Page 2 of 3

4.

A motion for a protective order may be made by a witness from whom discovery

is sought. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433 (10th Cir. 1977). According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c), the Court "may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense...." Additionally, a court may grant a protective order prohibiting discovery when it believes the information sought is wholly irrelevant to the issues or to prospective relief. Leighr v. Beverly Enterprises-Kansas Inc., 164 F.R.D. 550, 551 (D. Kan. 1996). Protective orders are entered by the Court for "good cause"; which is a determination that consists of balancing the harm to the person seeking the protective order versus the importance of disclosure to the public. Wiggins v. Burge, 173 F.R.D. 226, 229 (N.D. Ill. 1997). 5. The Court should order that discovery not be had pending its ruling on the Motion

of Defendant, Correctional Medical Services, to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Correctional Medical Services, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to enter the attached Protective Order, providing that Correctional Medical Services shall not be required to answer Plaintiff's discovery pending a decision by the Court on Correctional Medical Services' Motion to Dismiss. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: /s/ Kevin J. Connors KEVIN J. CONNORS, ESQ. DE Bar ID: 2135 1220 North Market Street, 5th Fl. P.O. Box 8888 Wilmington, DE 19899-8888 Attorney for Defendant, Correctional Medical Services

DATED: August 31, 2005

Case 1:04-cv-00328-SLR

Document 23

Filed 08/31/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served upon all persons listed below two true and correct copies of MOTION OF DEFENDANT, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER in the above-captioned matter this date by regular mail. Ernest A. Crump, Jr. SBI No. 00149221 Delaware Department of Corrections 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, DE 19977 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: /s/ Kevin J. Connors KEVIN J. CONNORS, ESQ. DE Bar ID: 2135 1220 North Market Street, 5th Fl. P.O. Box 8888 Wilmington, DE 19899-8888 Attorney for Defendant, Correctional Medical Services

DATED: August 31, 2005