Marziale v. Correct Care Solutions LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: May 29, 2019
• Docket: 5:18-cv-00086
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CHRISTINA MARZIALE, Individually and as Mother of Baby Boy Marziale; and DANA McLAIN, Administrator of the Estate of Elaine Marziale PLAINTIFFS

No. 5:18-cv-86-DPM CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS LLC; MAKITA LAGRANT; STEPHEN COOK; and WELLPATH LLC DEFENDANTS ORDER 1. The Court orders Correct Care to produce the Quality Improvement Plan documents, Ne 90. Correct Care relies on the state peer review privilege. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-46-105. No federal common law peer review privilege exists. E.g., Grabow v. County of Macomb, 2013 WL 3354505, at *6 (E.D. Mich. 3 July 2013). But federal courts can recognize a new privilege in light of reason and experience. FED. R. EvID. 501. The Court has reviewed the documents at issue. This kind of after-action report is important in improving inmate health care. But, that interest doesn’t outweigh the need for probative evidence about what happened. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1996). Correct Care must produce the documents by 4 June 2019. 2. LaGrant and Cook’s motion for joinder, Ne 117, is granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Ne 93, is denied. The third amended

complaint is essentially the same as the complaint that’s been in place for the past year. The claims against the defendants are sufficiently clear. And no defendant opposed the motion to amend. 3. Marziale’s motion to dismiss the claims of her minor child, Ne 120, is granted. Defendants will not be meaningfully prejudiced; the work done so far in this case can be recycled if Marziale pursues her son’s claims in the future. The claims of Baby Boy Marziale are dismissed without prejudice. FED. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 4. LaGrant’s motion to supplement the summary judgment record, Ne 123, is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against LaGrant, Ne 51, is denied without prejudice. There’s now dueling expert testimony on medical negligence and deliberate indifference. Material facts appear to be genuinely disputed. 5. Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to extend deadlines, Ne 126, is granted as modified. Rebuttal expert reports due by 14 June 2019. Discovery extended until 12 July 2019. Dispositive motions due by 16 August 2019. An Amended Final Scheduling Order, accommodating these extensions and setting a new trial date, will issue. 6. The Court has benefited from the parties’ reply briefs. In the future, any moving party may reply within seven calendar days of a response.

-2-

So Ordered. WPrpvtell D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 497 May 20! 4

-3-