Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Paul E. Rhodes,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Quirino Valeras, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)

CV 04-644-PHX-JAT (MS)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion to Correct Discovery Issues
16

(Doc. # 62) and Defendants' Response thereto (Doc. # 64). Plaintiff requests that the
17

Court compel Defendants to produce (1) color copies of pictures taken during medical
18

consultations and (2) copies of the manufacturers guides for the medications Plaintiff
19 20

has taken.1 Defendants' Response provides that upon further investigation color copies of the

21

medical consultations have been obtained and submitted to Plaintiff. (Doc. # 64 at ¶¶
22

8-9). Therefore, with respect to that issue, Defendants have complied with Plaintiff's
23 24 25 26 27 28 These requests are found in Plaintiff's First Motion to Correct Discovery Issues (Doc. # 47). Defendants responded to Plaintiff's first motion averring that they were attempting to comply with Plaintiff's requests. As a result, the Court denied Plaintiff's first motion to correct discovery issues as premature (Doc. # 49). On February 6, 2006 Plaintiff filed his Second Motion to Correct Discovery Issues (Doc. # 62) averring that Defendants still had not complied with his requests, and referred to his original motion for relief. Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA Document 65 Filed 02/17/2006 Page 1 of 3
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

request and therefore his motion will be denied as to the color copies of medical consultations. Defendants' Response further explains that the prison pharmacy does not have manufacturer's information guides for the eighteen enumerated medications Plaintiff has taken in the past several years. Instead, Defendants aver, they have provided Plaintiff with drug information on the eighteen medications obtained via the internet. In support of their argument that the prison pharmacy does not keep the manufacturer's information guides for prescriptions dispensed from the pharmacy, Defendants provide the affidavit of Marilyn Ward, a supervising pharmacist at the Lewis Facility prison pharmacy. Ward maintains that the prison is given one drug information guide for each medication the prison dispenses. As a result, those guides are not available to inmates. Defendants aver that it would be too difficult to copy each of the drug information guides as they are voluminous. (Doc. # 64 at Ex. D). Instead, Defendants provided Plaintiff with internet obtained information for the drugs Plaintiff has taken, as well as patient information sheets on the medications, which Defendants aver are similar to what a patient receives when taking medication outside of prison. These patient information sheets list information regarding the drug, including possible side effects and contraindications. Moreover, Defendants aver, the prison pharmacy has dispensed the same medications from many different manufacturers during the time Plaintiff has been receiving prescriptions. Because each manufacturer has a different product information guide, it would be too cumbersome to identify the time period in which Plaintiff took each specific drug, and then identify which manufacturer the prison was using at that time. Plaintiff does not identify the use for this desired discovery and Defendants have provided Plaintiff with a significant amount of information about the drugs he has taken over the last several years. Moreover, FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2) empowers the Court to limit discovery if it is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." There has been no showing of inadequacy of the information obtained from the internet or that
Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA 2 Document 65 Filed 02/17/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the drug manufacturer's guides relevant to Plaintiff's claim(s) are not essentially duplicative of the information produced to Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiff's claim(s). Because Defendants have demonstrated that the burden of producing copies of the manufacturer's guides outweighs the need for production under the circumstances presented, Plaintiff's Second Motion to Correct Discovery Issues will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Second Motion to Correct Discovery Issues (Doc. # 62) is DENIED.

DATED this 15th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA

3 Document 65

Filed 02/17/2006

Page 3 of 3