GREEN v. WARREN et al

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 	[Docket No. 185]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
RODNEY GREEN,
Civ. No. 21cv14144 (RMB) (EAP)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES WARREN, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
RODNEY GREEN
3804 Conshohocken Ave., 1st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19131
Plaintiff, pro se
CHRISTOPHER KELLY, ESQ.
TYSON & MENDES, LLP
595 E. Lancaster Ave., Suite 302
St. Davids, PA 19087
Attorney for Defendants Evelyn Olson and James Neal
BUMB, Chief District Judge:
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Motion for Summary
Judgment (“MSJ” Dkt. No. 185) filed by Defendants Evelyn Olson, R.N. (“Olson”),
and James Neal, M.D (“Neal”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff Rodney Green,
proceeding pro se, opposed the motion and seeks additional discovery pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(d). 	(“Opp’n” Dkt. No. 191.) 	The Court has considered the parties’
Case 1:21-cv-14144-RMB-EAP Document 196 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID:
<pageID>

2
submissions and will GRANT in part Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery and
RESERVE Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed his original pro se complaint on July 26, 2021. (Compl., Dkt. No.
1.) 	Olson was named as a defendant and filed an answer on September 29, 2021.
(Answer to Compl., Dkt. No. 11.) In August 2021, Plaintiff was appointed pro bono
counsel, William B. Hildebrand, Esq. (“Hildebrand”) 	(Notice of Appearance, Dkt.
No. 6.) 	On June 2, 2022, the parties advised the Court that initial written discovery
was complete, defense counsel was following up on production of documents from
third parties, and depositions were anticipated in July 2022. (Status Report, Dkt. No.
23.) 	On November 18, 2022, Hildebrand sought an extension of the discovery
deadline because he had not yet received the expected 2,700 pages of medical records
from Inspira, and this caused a delay in scheduling the depositions. (Letter, Dkt. No.
37.) On June 14, 2023, the Court granted Hildebrand’s request to withdraw as pro bono
counsel. 	(Order, Dkt. No. 68.) 	The next month, the Court appointed J. Brooks
DiDonato, Esquire (“DiDonato”) and Ashley Varghese, Esquire (“Varghese”) as pro
bono counsel. (Order, Dkt. No. 70.)
On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added Neal as a
defendant. 	(Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 93.) 	Olson filed an answer to the amended
complaint on July 12, 2024. (Answer, Dkt. No. 102.) Neal filed a motion to dismiss
in lieu of an answer on November 5, 2024. (Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 111.)
Over the course of 2025, Plaintiff sought assistance obtaining discovery,
including medical records from Inspira Hospital. (Letter, Dkt. No. 138, 158 at 3.) In
Case 1:21-cv-14144-RMB-EAP Document 196 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID:
<pageID>

3
July 2025, the Court repeated its order for Defendants, to the extent they were able, to
obtain Plaintiff’s hospital records from Inspira. 	(Order, Dkt. No. 165.) 	Defendants
filed their motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2025. (MSJ, Dkt. No. 185-
2.)
On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff wrote to the Court that his medical records from
Inspira included 6,700 pages, with a copying cost of $7,900, and postulated that those
records contained evidence that he needed to survive summary judgment. 	(Letter,
Dkt. No. 186.) Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants’ MSJ on March 23, 2026.
(Opp’n, Dkt. No. 191.)
II. 	DISCUSSSION
In response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff asserts that he
sought additional medical records from Inspira Hospital which he has not yet received.
(Opp’n at 1, Dkt. No. 191.) 	Plaintiff contends these medical records would contain
the complete list of his treating doctors’ names and would also show that CCJ
transferred him to Inspira Hospital on at least six occasions for “treatment that meets
the ‘professional standards of care.’” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff submits that when he receives
this discovery, he will seek expert testimony from his treating doctors. (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff’s request invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). 	A party
seeking 	relief 	under 	Rule 	56(d) 	has 	the 	burden 	to: 	(1) 	identify 	the 	particular
information sought; (2) explain how it would preclude summary judgment; and (3)
state why it was not previously obtained. Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136,
139–40 (3d Cir. 1988). Plaintiff identified the particular information sought as copies
of his Inspira medical records.
Case 1:21-cv-14144-RMB-EAP Document 196 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID:
<pageID>

4
The record establishes that Plaintiff is unable to pay the $7,900 copy costs for
his Inspira records. 	(Letter, Dkt. No. 186.) 	“There ‘is no provision in the [in forma
pauperis] statute for the payment by the government of the costs of deposition
transcripts, or any other litigation expenses, and no other statute authorizes courts to
commit federal monies for payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought
by an indigent litigant.” Forrest v. Wetzel, No. 3:17-CV-1777, 2021 WL 1614810, at *4
(M.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2021) (quoting Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993)).
The Court will provide Plaintiff the opportunity to narrow his medical record
request to reduce the costly burden of production on Inspira. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)
(“A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to
the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this
duty.”) 	Plaintiff has not established that he requires the names of all prior treating
physicians to oppose summary judgment or that fifteen years of medical records are
necessary. 	Plaintiff 	has 	submitted 	records 	establishing 	his 	diagnosis 	and 	a
contemporary treatment recommendation from his hospital discharge on October 6,
2020. Therefore, within three weeks of this Order, Plaintiff shall make arrangements
to review his Inspira Medical Records. 	Plaintiff shall then provide a status report
which narrows his request for copies to those which are necessary to oppose summary
judgment. The Court will not permit the production of the full Inspira records because
seeking “expert testimony from the multiple Doctors who treated him” (Dkt. No. 191
at 3) is not a valid basis for a Rule 56(d) request. 	Any additional discovery requests
must be made in the status report and meet the requirements for discovery under Fed.
Case 1:21-cv-14144-RMB-EAP Document 196 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID:
<pageID>

5
R. Civ. 56(d). Discovery will not be extended beyond six months from the date of this
Order.
IT IS, therefore, on this 14th day of October 2026,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d)(2) is GRANTED in part as outlined above; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff by regular
mail; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE this
case, solely for administrative reasons, and the Court will reopen this matter for
determination of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:21-cv-14144-RMB-EAP Document 196 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID:
<pageID>