Woliner v. Summers et al, No. 9:2018cv80305 - Document 150 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE/MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH'S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FOR CIVIL COMTEMPT AND FOR SANCTIONS [DE 129]. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 1/16/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)

Download PDF

Woliner v. Summers et al Doc. 150 UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT COU RT SO U THERN D ISTR ICT OF FLO RID A CA SE N O .l8-cv -8o3os-D im itrouleasN aûhew m an K EN NETH W O LW ER,M .D ., Plaintiff, FILED BY D.C. JAd 16 2219 M A RTHA SO FRON SK Y ,K RISTEN SU M M ER S,LO U ISE W ILH ITE ST. LA UREN T,and LU CY G EE, ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DISI CI s.D.oFdt-:..-w.RB. D efendants. O R DER D ENY IN G PLA IN TIFF'S N O TICE O F NO N -CO M PLIA N CE/M O TIO N T O C O M PEL N O N -PA RT Y FLO R ID A D EPA R TM EN T O F H EA LTH 'S PR O D U C TIO N O F DO CUM ENTS.FOR CIVIL CONTEM PT AND FOR SANCTIONS IDE 1291 TH IS CA U SE is before the Courtupon pro se Plaintiff, Kenneth W oliner's N otice of N on-com pliance with D E lzog laintiffs M otion to Com pelN on-party Florida D epartm ent of Health'sProduction ofDocuments,forCivilContemptand forSanctionsfDE 1291.Thismatter w as referred to the undersigned by United States DistrictJudge W illiam P.Dim itrouleas upon an O rderreferring a11discovery to the undersigned for finaldisposition.See D E 17.A sstated in this Court'spriorOrderdatedJanuary9,2019gDE 1381,theCourthasPlaintiff'sNoticeN otionunder consideration as itrelates to the non-party Florida D epartm entof Hea1th.The non-party Florida DepartmentofHealthhasfiledaResponse(DE 1421andPlaintiffhasfiledaReply.(DE 146).The m atteris now ripe fordisposition. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1. FACTUAL BACK GROUND On January 3,2019,Plaintifffiled aNoticeN otion to compeldocumentsfrom non-party FloridaDepartmentofHea1th (itDOH''),to hold DOH in civilcontemptforitsallegedfailureto fully complywithasubpoena,andforsandions.gDE 1291. On January 9,2019,the Courtissued an initialOrderon Plaintiff'sM otion,which denied theM otion to the extentthatitwasdirected to the individualDefendantsin thiscase,and which directedDOH tofilearesponseonorbeforeJanuary 11,2019at12:00noon.gDE 1381.Counsel forDOH compliedandtimelyfiledtheResponseonJanuary 11,2019.gDE 1421.Uponreview of D OH 's Response,the Courtentered a Supplem ental O rder w hich allow ed Plaintiff untilon or beforeJanuary 14,2019at12:00noon to filehisreply.(DE 1451.Plaintifftimely complied and filedhisReplyonJanuary 14,2019.(1461. A. PlaintifpsNotice/M otion IDE 1291 First,inhisJanuary3,2019Notice/M otion(DE 1291,PlaintiffcomplainsthatDOH didnot tim ely produce a1lresponsive docum entsand did notprovide a privilege log.A sto the tim eliness issue,Plaintiffs Notice/M otion gDE 1291 complains thatDOH did notproduce responsive docum entsuntilD ecem ber 17-18,2018,although D OH w as allegedly required to produce them by D ecem ber 14,2018.A sto the failure to produce allresponsive docum ents,Plaintiffclaim sthathe wasnotprovidedwithandtelectroniclog''ofactionsinûttheW olinerDisciplinaryCase''gDE 129, pg.4,! 161,aSsscreenshotofthecomputerscreen''(DE 129,pg.4,! 17j,Sûdocuments(emailand othercommunications)detailing how the complaintagainstPlaintiffslicense was closed and reopened''(DE 129,pg.4,! 171,orun-redactedemailsgDE 129,pg.3,!131.Plaintiffclaimsinhis NoticeN otionthathehasbeenprejudicedbecauseDOH didnotproducethedocumentstohim by December14,2018.gDE 129,pg.4,! 191. B. Response ofNon-partvFloridaDepartm entofHeaIth IDE 1421 In itsResponse,theD O H claim sthatPlaintifftiled hisN otice/M otion in bad faith,failed to eom ply w ith applicable rules,m isstated the factualbackground,and seeks to m islead the Court. kDE 142,pg.1,! 1).DOH asserts thatit has diligently endeavored to provide responsive documentstoPlaintiffandcontinuestodoso.(DE 142,pg.1,!2).DOH claimsthatthedocuments w ere inadvertently notproduced to Plaintiff on Friday,Decem ber 14,2018,and once that enor w asdiscovered,the docum entsw ere im m ediately produced to Plaintiffon M onday,D ecem ber 17, 2018 viaelectroniclink.(DE 142,pgs.2-3,! 3-8).DOH also claimsthatitstrackingofthetile show s that Plaintiff dow nloaded the docum ents on D ecem ber 17, 2018 at 12:04 p.m ., despite Plaintiffsclaim thathewasunable to download thedocumentson thatdate.gDE 142,pg.3,! 9-101.In fact,DOH attached an Exhibitto itsResponse which showsthatPlaintiffviewed the electronic file on D ecem ber 17,2018 at 11:32 a.m .and dow nloaded the docum ents on D ecem ber 17,20l8at12:04p.m.gDE 142-11.DOH assertsthatPlaintifffailedtoconferingoodfaithbefore tilinghisNotice/Motion (DE 1291and thatPlaintiffisinpossessionoftherequesteddocuments. (DE 142,pgs.3-51.DOH notesthatPlaintiffs medicallicense wasrevoked for committing malpracticeresultinginpatientdeath.gDE 142,pg.4,! 151.DOH assertsthatPlaintiffrequested and received thousandsofdocum entsfrom theD O H and m adehundredsofpublic recordsrequests priorto,during,and since thatmedicallicense revocation proceeding.(DE 142,pg.41.DOH assertsthatitdid notredactdocum entsin response to requests5-7,9-12,30,31,36,37,38,39,40 and 41and thatthosedocumentswereproduced asthey existin theDOH emaildatabase.(DE 142,pg.4,! 18).DOH also notesthatithasprovided additionaldocumentsto Plaintiffafter D OH received his N otice/M otion,and that Plaintiff has received al1responsive docum ents by w ay of D O H 's response to the subpoena, D O H 's responses to public record requests from Plaintiff,D OH 's production in a separate state m atter,and D OH 's production in regards to the m edical license revocation proceeding, and that their searches for the rem aining outstanding requestsdid notlocateany additionalresponsivedocuments.(DE 142,pgs.4-5,! 15-231.DOH requests thatthe Courtdeny Plaintiff's Notice/M otion and impose sanctions againstPlaintiff. (DE 142,pg.6j. PlaintifrsReplv IDE 1461 Plaintiff'sReply (DE 146)claimsthat1)hewassupposed to getdocumentson Friday, December14,2018anddidnotreceivethem bythatdate,therebySlseverelyprejudicing''him gDE 143,pg.2,!31;2)hereceivedtheelectronicfileofdocumentsfrom DOH onDecemberl7,20l8 at11:40a.m.butcouldnotopenthedocumentsastheywereinacompressedtile(DE 146,pg.3,! 7-81;3)onDecember17-18,2018,DOH provided Sssome(butnotall)responsivedocumentsinits possession''(DE 146,pg.61;4)on January 10,2019,DOH provided 3,829 pagesofadditional responsivedocumentsgDE 146,pg.3,! 111;and5)hetriedto conferwithDOH butcouldnotdo so because he could not reach anyone at D O H and D OH counsel M r.W illiam s never alerted PlaintiffthatD O H w as producing an additional3,829 pagesofdocum ents so thatPlaintiffSicould havewithdrawnhisM otiontoCompel.''gDE 146,pg.5J. ThesanctionsPlaintiffseeksagainstDOH are1)thattheCourtorderthattheDOH comply withtheCourt'sDecember7,2011gsic)Orderandproducea1lresponsivedocuments,including theelectronicttcasehistory''thatisresponsivetoRequestNo.90, .and2)inthealternative,thatthe 4 Courtentertsan orderthatfacts in dispute be taken to be established in favorofthe party seeking themotion''perFederalRuleofCivilProcedure37(b)(2).(DE 146,pg.6q. lI. FINDINGS AND ANALYS S TheCourthascarefully reviewed Plaintiff'sNoticeN otion (DE 1291,DOH'sResponse gDE 1421,and PlaintiffsReply (DE 1461.TheCourthasalso carefully reviewed theCD-ROM tiledbyPlaintiff(DE 139,DE 1431,whichCD-ROM containsnumerousdocumentsresponsiveto Plaintiff's subpoena produced by D OH to Plaintiffvia electronic link on D ecem ber 17,2018 and via CD -ROM on D ecem ber 18,2018.The Courtaddressesthe relevantissues below . A. PlaintifrsFailureto Confer in Good Faith Pursuantto LocalRule7.1(a)(3)and FederalRuleofCivilProcedure37(a)(1) Asathreshold matter,LocalRule 7.1(a)(3)requiresamovantoramovant'scounselto çkconfer(orallyorinwritingl''orSlmakereasonableeffortto confer(orallyorinwritingl''witha11 partiesin a d'good faith effortto resolve by agreem entthe issuesto be raised in them otion.''Failure to conferorto show a good-faith attem ptto confer,by itself,constitutesgrounds forthe m otion to be denied.Silver Creek Farms,LLC v.Fullington,N o.16-80353-CV ,2018 W L 1413064,at *3 (S.D.Fla.M ar.20,2018)(citing Muzaffarrv.RossDressforLess,Inc.,941F.Supp.2d 1373, 1373(S.D.Fla.2013)).TheCourt'sOrderSetting DiscoveryProcedure gDE 181requiresgood faith confenulin person orby telephone before a discovery m otion isfiled. Plaintiff included a Certificate ofCompliance with LocalRule 7.1(a)(3),in which he certified thathe contacted counselD OH by em ailon D ecem ber 17,2018,and then called counsel on December31,2018.gDE 129,pg.71.However,itappearsthatPlaintiffneverspoke with counselforD O H afterreceiving and review ing the docum ents on D ecem ber 17-18,2018.Italso appears,from screenshotsofPlaintiff siphone which he attached to hisReply,thatPlaintiffsolely 5 attemptedtocontactM ichaelW illiams,counselforDOH,at8:32a.m.onDecember3l,2018.(DE 146,pg.171.TheofficesoftheFloridaDepm mentofHealth,likethatofmany otherstateand federalagencies,w ere closed on D ecem ber31,2018,which w asN ew Y ears'Eve. W hile itistrue thatDecem ber 31,2018 w as apparently notan officialstate holiday,the Courthas no doubtthat the representation of M ichael J. W illiam s, Esq., counsel for D OH ,that the oftices of the DepartmentofHealth were closed on December31,2018 gDE 142,pg.3,!(12)iscompletely accurate.The Courtdoesnotfind thatPlaintiff's singlephone callto D OH counselon the m orning of N ew Y ears' Eve, on w hich date business and governm ent offices are frequently closed constitutes a reasonable effort to confer in good faith, as required. Further, Plaintiff had the docum ents in his possession fortw o weekspriorto the single phone callto cotm selforD O H ,and easily could have m ade m ore efficient good faith attem pts to confer w ith counselprior to the holiday w eekend. lndeed,itisquite possible,even probable,thathad Plaintiff com plied w ith the localrule and this Court's O rder Setting D iscovery Procedure and m ade a good faith efïbrtto personally confer with counselforD O H ,Plaintiffcould have resolved this issue w ith counselforD OH and avoided the necessity of filing his N otice/M otion.ln this regard, Plaintiff even argues in his Reply thathad he know n D OH w as going to prodtlce an additional3,829 pagesof docum ents,he wouldhavewithdrawnhisM otion.(DE 146,pg.51.Thisispreciselywhy goodfaithconferralis so im portant.Plaintiff's failure to fully com ply in good faith w ith the conferralrequirem ents of LocalRule 7.1(a)(3)and thisCourt'sOrderSetting Discovery Procedure (DE 181providesthe Courtsuflicient grounds to deny Plaintiff's Notice/M otion w ithout further analysis.See Silver Creek Farm s,LLC,2018 W L 1413064,at *3.Plaintiff's N otice/M otion is accordingly DEN IED 6 on thatbasis.H ow ever,the C ourtw illneverthelessreview the substantivebasesofthe M otion and rule on the m erits asw ell. B . Plaintiff W as Dilatorv in lssuing a Proper Subpoena to D O H and Therefore CannotClaim PreiudiceDuetoAnv Alleced LateProduction bv DO H Plaintiff'sclaim thatheisseverelyprejudicedbecauseinsteadofreceivingtheresponsive documentson Friday,December 14,2018,he received the firstbatch ofdoctlments from DOH betw een M onday,D ecem ber l7,2018 and Tuesday,D ecem ber 18,2018,and the second set of 3,829 pagesofdocum entsfrom D OH on January 10,2019,isw ithoutm erit.First,itm ustbe noted thatthiscasewastirstfiled in statecourtand wasthen removedtofederalcourton M arch 9,2018. gDE 1).OnApril4,2018,theCourtissuedaSchedulingOrderwhich setadiscoverycut-offdate ofN ovem ber 14,2018,a substantive m otion deadline ofD ecem ber 14,2018,and a tw o w eek trial periodbeginningM arch 11,2019.gDE 81. Despite these deadlines,Plaintiffwaited alm ostsix m onths- untilSeptem ber30,2018 - to ? serve upon the Defendants (and presumably,DOH) a defective and improper CtNotice of ProductionofNon-parties,''towhichDefendantscorrectlyobjectedandfiledameritoriousmotion forprotectiveorderon October5,2018.(DE 821.Thereafter,despite thefiling ofDefendants' objection and motion for protective order on October 5,2018,Plaintiffnonetheless filed a Certiticate ofNon-objection to the Notice of Production on October 12,2018.(DE 841.1 Plaintiff s im proper conduct in this regard first resulted in the Court's O ctober 30,2018 O rder which granted Defendants'motion forprotectiveorder.(DE 921.lnthatOrder,the Court,inter alia, found thatto the extentPlaintiff intended to issue a subpoena under FederalRule of C ivil Procedure 45 pertheN otice ofProduction from N on-party,any resultantsubpoenasw ere quashed l' I'heCoul' thaspreviouslyfoundthatPlaintiff'sCertificationofNon-objectionwasinaccurateandmisleadingto thisCourt.(DE 96,pgs.6-71. 7 dswithoutprejudicetoPlaintiffsabilityto issueaproper,clearand specificrequestforproduction under Rule 34 and Rule 26(b)(1),or to issue a proper subpoena to a non-party after full compliance with the requirements of Rule 45 and Rule 26(b)(l), in a timely manner in aecordancewiththeCourt'sSchedulingOrder.''gDE 92,pgs.3-41. Plaintiff'sconductin thisregard also resulted in yetanotherCourtOrderdated November 1,2018 gDE 961,which Order granted Defendants'motion for protective order from the non-party subpoena issuedtoDOH (DE 871.ThatNovember1,2018 CourtOrder(DE 96,pgs. 5-61again stated thatitwas issued withoutprejudice to Plaintiff's ability to issue a proper subpoena to the non-party which complies with Rule 45 and Rule 26(b)(1),all conferral requirements,theCourt'sOrderSettingDiscoveryProceduregDE 181,andtheSchedulingOrder gDE 81. 2 Then,on N ovem ber 13,2018 - m ore than seven m onths after the entry ofthe Scheduling Order - Plaintiff filed his Rule 45(a)(4) Notice of Subpoena to Non-party, the Florida Department of Health (DE 1101.This resulted in a motion for protective order filed by DefendantsonNovember21,20l8 (DE l161and a subsequentCourtOrderdated December7, 2018,whichgrantedinpartanddeniedinpartDefendants'motionforprotectiveorder(DE 1201. ThisCourtOrderwasentered seven daysbefore the expiration ofthe extended discovery cut-off date of D ecem ber 14, 20183,due to Plaintiff's dilatory conductofbelatedly issuing a vague and overbroad subpoena to the D O H . 2At the tim e of the entry of this Court's order dated N ovem ber 1, 20l8, the discovery motion deadline was November14,201sandthesubstantivemotiondeadlinewasDecember14,20l8(DE 8).However,duetovarious deposition disputes,the Court,by orderdated N ovem ber 13,2018,extended the discovery m otion deadline until December14,2018,andthedisposi tivemotiondeadlineuntilJanuary 14,20l9.gDE 105). 35' ee f.n.2,supra. 8 The Court points out this timeline because Plaintiffs claim that he was Stseverely prejudiced''becauseDOH produced itstirstbatch ofresponsivedocumentsto him onDecember 17 -18,2018,and then the second batch ofdocum entson January 10,2019,isdue prim arily to Plaintiffs own dilatory conduct in waiting until the eleventh hour to issue a subpoena to non-party D OH which required extensive and repeated court intervention. lt is therefore clear that D OH 's alleged tw o-day delay in providing the initial docum ents to Plaintiff w as not prejudicialto Plaintiff.M oreover,the additionaltime tmtilDOH produced the 3,829 pagesof documents to Plaintiff on January 10,2019 was reasonable and did not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff has only him self to blam e for any alleged last-m inute production from the non-party D OH . C.TheExtensiveProduction bv DOH BeliesPlaintifrsClaim ofSeverePreiudice The CD -RO M produced to Plaintiff,w hich this Courthascarefully review ed,contains an extensive am ount of discovery.A dditionally,on January 10,2019,D OH produced to Plaintiff 3,829 pages of additional docum ents.M oreover,Plaintiff has m ade hundreds of public records requests to D OH , and has received thousands of docum ents from D OH over the years in reference to his m edical license revocation and related issues. Plaintiff s claim of severe prejudice isfalse and belied by thefacts and the record in thiscase.DOH hasasserted in its response thatithas fully com plied w ith the Court'sD ecem ber 7,2018 O rder and has ctlred any inadvertent and initialfailure m ade by forwarding docum ents directly to Plaintiff.See D E 142, Pg.4,!20.DOH alsomaintainsthatithaspreviouslyprovided Plaintif/ with$ça11emailstoand from DefendantSofronsky in a separate state courtmatter.''(DE 142,pg.4,!21). TheCourt 4DOH 'sResponseactuallyreferstoçiDefendant''but, giventhecontext, the Courtunderstandsthisto bean error andthatcounselforDOH intendedto writetçplaintiff. '' 9 agrees w ith,and the record and exhibits support,D OH 's contention that it has fully com plied w ith Plaintiff s extensive requests fordocum ents.N o further docum ents need to be produced as D OH hasfully com plied in good faith w ith the subpoena as lim ited by the Courtin its Order,and Plaintiffclearly has allthe docum ents he needsto attem ptto prosecute hiscase. D . D O H A cted D ilizentlv and Produced an Extensive A m ount of D ocum ents on ShortN otice The Courtfinds that D O H acted diligently and in good faith,and rapidly produced an extensive am ountof docum ents to Plaintiff on a very shortdeadline.M oreover,the Courthas review ed a1lrelevant tilings and finds thatD OH 's argum entthatit has produced allresponsive docum ents is accurate.This Courtw illnotorder DO H to produce docum ents itdoes nothave in its possession, custody, or control. The Court tinds that D O H has fully com plied w ith its obligations and provided a1ldocum ents subpoenaed by Plaintiff as specitied by the Courtin its O rder at DE 120.5 Therefore, Plaintiff s M otion to Com pelD O H to com ply w ith the Court's O rderand produce additionaldocum entsisD EN IE D. E. Plaintiff's R equestfor Sanctions A cainstD O H Pursuantto FederalR ule of Civil Procedure 37 is FrivolousY o H 'sR equestfor SanctionsisD enied TheCourtrejectsPlaintiffsrequestforsanctionsagainstDOH totheeffectthattheCourt findthatlûfactsindisputebetakentobeestablished.''(DE 146,pg.6).DOH isnotapartytothis case.There are no facts in dispute between Plaintiff and D O H ,and thus FederalRule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) is wholly inapplicable to this case.Plaintiffs request for sanctions is D EN IED . 5PlaintifpscomplaintthatDOH failedtoprepareaprivilegelogisrejected.Noclaim wasofprivileFewasasserted by DOH.Thus,pursuanttoLocalRule 26.l(e)(2)(C),theDOH wasnotrequiredto prepareany privllege login this Case. 10 M oreover,Plaintiff appears to seek an aw ard of attorneys' fees and costs against D OH underFederalRule ofCivilProcedure 37.(DE 129,pg.6).This requestisfrivolous and is D EN IED. Finally,N on-party D O H also requests an award of expenses and attorneys'fees against Plaintiff.The Courthas considered this request butw ill exercise its discretion to deny D OH 's requestf0ratlorneys'feesand expenses. 111. CO N C LU SIO N ln light of the foregoing,Plaintiff's N otice of N on-com pliance w ith D E lzog laintift's M otion to Com pelN on-party Florida D epartm entofH ealth's Production ofD ocum ents,forCivil ContemptandforSanctions(DE 1291ishereby DENIED.TheCourtfindsthatdiscoveryinthis case is CLO SED perDE 105. The Clerk of Courtis directed to m aila copy of this Orderto M ichaelJ.W illiam s,Esq., Chief LegalCounsel,O ffice of the General Counsel,Florida D epartm ent of H ea1th,4052 Bald Cypress W ay,Bin # A-02,Tallahassee,Florida,32399-3265;and to Cluistine E.Lam ia,Esq., Chief Appellate Counsel,Florida D epartm ent ofH ealth,Office of the General Counsel,Florida D epartm entofH ea1th,4052 Bald Cypress W ay,B in # A -02,Tallahassee,Florida,32399-3265. D O N E and O RD ERED in Cham bers atW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach Cotm ty,Florida, this/lddayofJanuary,2019. . . i W ILLIAM M A H EW M AN U nited StatesM agistrate Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.