MOTION TO REMOVE OBJECTIONS, COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND IMPOSE SANCTIONS

Sean Lynn and Laura Hammett (“Lynn,” “Hammett,” and collectively “Claimants”), pro se with aligned interests, state as follows:

1. Claimants made a good-faith effort to resolve these discovery disputes through emails to which the three letters filed contemporaneously here were attached, and by several unaccepted offers to discuss the discovery dispute in person.

• UAMS refused to participate in the meet and confer communications. Counsel Sherri Robinson demanded more time to respond to the written communications. Instead of responding to the Claimants privately, UAMS responded by filing what they termed “amended and substituted” answers—without leave—and a weak argument responsive to the Claimants’ meet-and-confer letters, couched as an “introduction”.

• There is no authority for parties to file amended or substitute discovery responses without first obtaining leave. The rules specifically iimpose a duty to “supplement”.

• Therefore, UAMS rendered any further efforts to resolve discovery disputes without the Commission’s intervention futile.

II. UAMS Used Dilatory Tactics

• Claimants agreed to an extension for UAMS to respond to set one of the interrogatories and RFPs. UAMS served those one day after the extended deadline passed and served set two a week late, with no request for consent to extend.

•  Even after taking extra time, the UAMS responses were grossly deficient and repetitive.

• In response to the Claimants’ Requests for Admission, UAMS introduced contentions that were non-responsive and denied statements for which there is no genuine dispute, multiplying the proceedings.

• For example, UAMS denied RFA No. 1, despite statements written in the medical record and recorded on video evidence produced that Lynn told UAMS to stop, physically struggled to make UAMS stop and made several attempts to escape.  

• The UAMS “amended and substituted” responses were filed on September 12, 2025, with no leave to amend sought. UAMS should be compelled to explain why it denied true statements originally, or be sanctioned for delaying the proceedings and causing a hardship on the Claimants.

1.  UAMS denied that it administered sedatives and antipsychotic medications to Lynn against his will. Responses to RFA Nos. 15 and 16. In the same paragraph, UAMS explains why they claim they were doing Lynn a favor when they drugged him without consent. Good motivation does not relieve the provider from failure to obtain consent to provide medical services. To act otherwise renders the rules, policies, and the United States Constitution that guarantee a person’s autonomy over their body meaningless.

1.  The responses and the medical record lack any indication that an emergent, life-threatening or disfiguring condition that is treated with sedatives or anti-psychotics existed.

1.  UAMS refused to attribute the decision to commit criminal battery on Lynn to specific employees.

1.  UAMS did not name any employee accountable for destroying video evidence of alleged criminal conduct.

1.  AMS interjected an affirmative defense that was not made timely and was therefore waived. It is also improper to raise affirmative defenses within answers to interrogatories.

1.  In each set of the “amended and substituted” sets of responses to interrogatories, UAMS said that they were providing information to assist the Claimants in understanding the UAMS responses to the discovery requests. Responses at page 2.

1.  UAMS was deceitful. The “information” argues that all responses to Claimants’ requests referring to the medical record are proper under Rule 33(d) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 33(d) requires that “specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.” UAMS did not cite pages and did not say what entries in the 1,300-page medical record were responsive.  

1.  For example:

INTERROGATORY NO. 72: According to UAMS denial of Request for Admission (RFA) No. 1, “Consent is not required in Emergency Situations.” What was the Emergency Situation that UAMS claims to override the 14th amendment right to medical autonomy and the stated policy of UAMS that patients have a “right to refuse treatment”?

ANSWER: UAMS objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, argumentative, calls for a legal conclusion, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding the objection, UAMS refers Claimants to the medical record, which speaks for itself, for a summary of Lynn’s injuries and the emergent nature of those injuries.

1.  UAMS is requiring Claimants to read the minds of unnamed medical providers who UAMS claimed had found some unspecified need for treatment for unspecified “symptoms” of TBI. In fact, UAMS impermissibly substituted its judgment for Lynn’s judgment. UAMS is telling Lynn to now look at a summary of what UAMS employees say occurred over two weeks to determine why UAMS felt entitled to violate Lynn’s autonomy over his own body.

1.  UAMS declared that claimants are required to obtain an expert witness report. UAMS did not file a motion to have the claims dismissed and allow Claimants the opportunity to tell the Claims Commission why UAMS is wrong. UAMS is substituting its judgment for the Commissioners’ judgment.

•  UAMS declared the September 12, 2025 document should replace the original Responses provided by the parties on July 18, 2025. There was no motion filed. Claimants object to any limitation on using the original responses for impeachment purposes.

•  Claimants request that all UAMS objections be removed.   

•  Claimants request that UAMS be compelled to fulfill its obligation to respond in good faith within a 10-day safe harbor period, and that any reference to the medical record include a citation to identify where it is responsive.

•  After the safe harbor period, Claimants request that where UAMS failed to answer an interrogatory or RFP fully, UAMS be restricted from using any documentary evidence at trial or on a motion for summary judgment that would have been responsive to an interrogatory or RFP, but Claimants should be allowed to use that evidence once it is produced.

•  Claimants have far less economic resources than UAMS. Claimants ask that, because UAMS was evasive and outright non-compliant with its duty to respond, that UAMS pay all costs associated with the oral deposition of ten witnesses of Claimants’ choosing.

•  UAMS made special note that Claimants are not allowed to collect attorney fees as pro se litigants. There must be an economic incentive for UAMS to stop lying and start producing answers and documents.

•  In a general objection, UAMS objected to the instructions and definitions set forth by Claimants. Those instructions and definitions were substantially carbon copies of instructions that UAMS drafted. UAMS objected to what they propounded upon the Claimants.

•  UAMS said they will supplement their responses to Claimants’ discovery after obtaining all the records and the pertinent deposition testimony of the fact witnesses and any expert witnesses. Since the responses were significantly lacking, close to null, it is apparent that either UAMS did not make a reasonable inquiry before filing its responses or withheld its findings in order to ambush Claimants at the end of the discovery period.

•  In its general objection, UAMS asserts that “[a]ll references to the medical record by Respondent herein are to the Legal Medical Record generated on April 29, 2025 and provided to Claimants on May 9, 2025 by email to Claimant Laura Hammett.” By defining “the medical record” in this limited way, UAMS appears to exclude from discovery both earlier-produced materials and documents that remain withheld—specifically, records referenced via apparent hyperlinks in the 4/29/25 record and essential imaging reports (radiology, CT scans, and x-rays) not included in production. These omissions contradict both customary medical record definitions and the duty to produce all relevant medical documentation responsive to Claimants’ requests.

•  The most repeated answer, in full: “UAMS objects to this interrogatory as it calls for pure conjecture and speculation, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is not relevant to any of the claims raised by Claimants. Moreover, this request is unduly burdensome as Claimants have the burden of proving their claims through expert testimony, and this Request impermissibly attempts to shift this burden to UAMS. Notwithstanding the objection, UAMS refers Claimants to the medical record, which speaks for itself.”

•  UAMS claimed Claimants’ discovery requests were “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”. The rule is that leeway is given in discovery requests so long as they may reasonably lead to relevant evidence.

•  Respondent’s purported reason that the requests are burdensome, “Claimants have the burden of proving their claims through expert testimony, and this Request impermissibly attempts to shift this burden to UAMS”. UAMS is wrong. The only negligence claimed is a matter that can be comprehended with common knowledge. UAMS is liable for supervisory negligence because it does not require its triage nurses to verify the mechanism of injury reported by an EMT without attribution. UAMS accepts the EMT report, even if it is inconsistent with the patient’s condition and despite the patient asking to correct the medical record. UAMS as Respondeat superior condoned and continues to condone false imprisonment, battery, and fraud by its employees.

•  “UAMS refers Claimants to the medical record, which [they falsely claim] speaks for itself”, instead of providing additional documentation or information requested. For example, there are no surveillance videos produced. There are no handwritten notes. Hammett observed the entire team of residents and trainees typing notes into electronic devices outside Lynn’s room during rounds with a professor. Those notes are all HIPPA protected and should be maintained according to UAMS policy. There were no policies provided, such as the policy to inquire if there is dissatisfaction with the care if a guest is video recording the hospitalization, which Hammett obtained through a FOIA request. There are no studies or written protocols produced that address the use of opioids, benzodiazepines, and restraints on TBI patients. There is no paperwork required for a “72-hour hold” or “psych hold”, words that UAMS used to describe the incarceration. There are no emails discussing the case, though all the uams.edu emails belong to UAMS, not the user.

•  Of the forty-one (41) separate requests for production of documents, Claimants objected and refused to respond to all but three of those.  The response to RFP No. 8 included the floor plan for the fourth floor, but excluded the floor plan for the emergency room. Hammett was not allowed to see the emergency room at all on July 1, 2025, when given a whirlwind tour of the fourth floor. The response to RFP No. 14 included only the correspondence between Claimants and UAMS. There were no intra-organizational communications, such as inquiries by HIM to the medical providers by email or a secure clinical communication and collaboration platform, such as PerfectServe.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT

III. Boilerplate Objections, purposefully false answers and non-responsive material are improper.     

     The party submitting the interrogatories may move for an order under Rule 37(a) with respect to any objection to or other failure to answer an interrogatory. Rule 33 – Interrogatories to Parties, Ark. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5)

     All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity. Ark. Rule. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). General or boilerplate objections are improper. The objecting party must show specifically how each interrogatory is burdensome, irrelevant, or otherwise objectionable.

     If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Rule 33, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to allow for inspection, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request. Rule 37 – Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions, Ark. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2).

     Sanctions are appropriate when there are no good reasons for a failure to admit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Notes.

     Blanket objections made by UAMS are entirely improper. Blanket objections do not comply with either the spirit or the letter of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rules 33 and 34 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure state that each request should be answered separately unless the objecting party objects and states the reason for the objection, and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable. Ark. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1),34(b)(2). There is nothing in the Rules that would suggest general objections are appropriate. UAMS should be compelled to remove all general objections and answer each interrogatory and request for production of document as the Claimants did.

IV. The UAMS statement that Claimants have the burden of proving their claims through expert testimony is false.

     Hammett is claiming non-medical causes of injury. Her claims are not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act, and therefore, UAMS must respond to joint requests made by both claimants.

     Taking Lynn’s claims alone, expert testimony is still not required to support the Claimant’s assertions. “Expert testimony is only required when the asserted negligence does not lie within the jury’s comprehension; when the applicable standard of care is not a matter of common knowledge; and when the jury must have the assistance of expert witnesses to decide the issue of negligence.” Prater v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 293 Ark. 547, 739 S.W.2d 676 (1987).

     “So too, a surgeon who performs an operation upon a patient who has refused to submit to it is not relieved from liability by the fact that he honestly and, indeed, justifiably believes that the operation is necessary to save the patient’s life. Indeed, the fact that medical testimony shows that the patient would have died had the operation not been performed and that the operation has effected a complete cure is not enough to relieve the physician from liability. See § 892A, Illustration 2.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1965)

     Lack of any consent to treatment is different from lack of informed consent referred to in section 16-114-209. There is an exception to the general requirement of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases when the asserted negligence lies within a jury’s comprehension as a matter of common knowledge, such as when a surgeon fails to sterilize his instruments or remove a sponge from an incision before closing it. See Rogers v. Sargent, 2010 Ark. App. 640, at 5 (citing Spears v. McKinnon, 168 Ark. 357, 270 S.W. 524 (1925)); Haase v. Starnes, 323 Ark. 263, 269, 915 S.W.2d 675, 678 (1996) (citing Lanier v. Trammell, 207 Ark. 372, 180 S.W.2d 818 (1944)). In Pry v. Jones, expert testimony was held unnecessary where a physician severed a ureter that he had failed to identify and locate while removing an ovary. 253 Ark. 534, 539–40, 487 S.W.2d 606, 608–09 (1973). The Arkansas Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003 retains this exception to the requirement of expert testimony. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-206(a). comment, AMI 1501.

     Expert testimony must be supplied by the claimant only when trying to prove the medical provider did not use the proper level of medical care. Lanier v. Trammell, 207 Ark. 372, 379.

      Where the plaintiff claimed that the patient either did not consent to the procedure or was unable to give consent because of mental impairment, the plaintiff was not required to obtain expert medical testimony. West’s A.C.A. §§ 20–9–601 to 20–9–603. Cited in Millsap v. Williams, 2014 Ark. 469, 449 S.W.3d 291 (2014)

     With respect to the failure to obtain consent, the patient has the burden of proving each of three essential propositions: First, that the Plaintiff sustained damages; second, that the medical care was provided without consent; third, that such failure was a proximate cause of damages to the Plaintiff. Id. There is no burden on the patient to prove the treatment was unnecessary.

     Black’s Law dictionary defines “common knowledge” as a fact that is so widely known that a court may accept it as true without proof.” COMMON KNOWLEDGE, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024)

     The Commission knows that a person who falls from three-and-a-half stories would not say it hurt “a little”, have vitals all within healthy range and when offered treatment, say “how much does it cost?” No medical expert would be required to determine that adopting an unattributed, false statement that defied common knowledge was negligent.

     Lynn does not need to prove his decision to refuse treatment from UAMS was correct. Though it was.

     Regardless, when the defense of emergent need is asserted, the burden of proof falls on the medical provider who acted without consent.

     Presumed consent is only available as a defense if justified under prevailing social norms and if the defendant had no reason to believe that the plaintiff would object to the contact if given the chance. Proser, Torts, 15^th edition, page 49. Also see Chapter 3, section 1. It is absurd to suggest that leaving Lynn naked with his genitals fully exposed to UAMS employees of various sexual orientations and genders was acceptable. It is chilling that Nurse Shannon Cobb alluded to Lynn being ungrateful for being fed 1,000 calories per day of pudding and sugar water during his imprisonment. Smashing a TBI patient’s head into walls and bedrails in order to strap him down is well outside of the prevailing social norms.

V. The medical record does not “speak for itself”.

     UAMS’s reliance on Rule 33(d) to refer Plaintiffs to a 1,300-page medical record is procedurally deficient. The rule requires that the responding party specify the records in sufficient detail to permit the requesting party to locate the answer “as readily” as the responding party. UAMS failed to identify page numbers, timestamps, or custodial sources, placing an unequal burden on Plaintiffs.

     Neither is UAMS allowed to act as if its original answers do not exist.         UAMS’s “substituted” responses materially alter prior answers and introduce new factual assertions and legal defenses. These changes were made without leave of court and without explanation, violating procedural norms and undermining the integrity of the discovery process. Black’s defines “amendment by substituting (1821)” as a “special type of amendment by striking out and inserting that replaces an entire main motion or a paragraph or other readily divisible part within a main motion; an amendment of greater scope than a perfecting amendment. Cf. perfecting amendment.” AMENDMENT, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). “Amendment” is a “formal and usu. minor revision or addition proposed or made to a statute, constitution, pleading, order, or other instrument; specif., a change made by addition, deletion, or correction; esp., an alteration in wording.” Id. “amendment as of course (1925) An amendment, usu. to pleadings, that a party has a statutory right to apply for without the court’s permission. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).” Id.

     There is no statutory right to amend or substitute a discovery response. There is only permission, and, in fact, a requirement to “supplement”. Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(e). A search on Westlaw Precision+ of Arkansas Authorities with the search terms “amend! /3 substitut! /p response! /p discov!” returns zero mentions of amended and substituted discovery responses. UAMS is hallucinating procedures. (It is noteworthy that Co-Pilot AI also mistook the ability to “amend” discovery responses, by citing Ark. R. Civ. P. 15. Only pleadings are addressed in that section. Discovery responses are not one of the enumerated pleadings. See, Ark. R. Civ. P. 7(a).)

VI. Prayer for Relief

     Claimants request that the Commission compel UAMS to remove all objections from its responses to discovery, answer the interrogatories with specificity and thoroughness, provide access to all the documents requested, and do it quickly. UAMS has known about the litigation since January 2024. It should have its documentation collected by now.

     Further, the motion filed by UAMS to limit discovery, both in quantity and a cut-off, should be denied. UAMS should pay the costs of 10 depositions of witnesses chosen by Claimants, and any other relief the Commission finds appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,