Butler v. Rigby

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4618 (E.D. La. 1998)

What's Going On?

Expert witnesses appeal the denial of a motion for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) to prevent the discovery of certain information requested by Defendants.

Who's Who?

Plaintiff     :

Butler, et al – persons injured in an automobile accident.

Defendants :

Rigby, et al – allegedly negligent driver.

Facts:

Doctors from the groups, American Medical Group (“AMG”) and Midtown Health Care (“MHC”), provided medical treatment to all Plaintiffs involved in a particular automobile accident, and are expert witnesses in this litigation, although not parties to the lawsuit. Defendants requested certain documents and information in their depositions on AMG and MHC, including all documents, records, and other tangible evidence which reflected the total number of patients treated at AMG's of MHC's facilities that were referred to AMG and/or MHC by attorneys from a specific personal injury center; and a computer printout of their current patients. AMG and MHC moved for a protective order prohibiting discovery of the information requested by Defendants on the grounds that the information was irrelevant, overly burdensome, and protected by the health care provider-patient privilege. The magistrate judge found that most of the information was discoverable. AMG and MHC appeal.

Issue:

May the health care provider-patient privilege protect information that is relevant to the subject matter of the case from discovery?

Decision:

Yes. Under FRCP 26(b)(1), the scope of discovery includes any matter that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action that is not privileged. Discovery may be restricted if the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit under Rule 26(b)(2). Rule 26(c) provides that the court may make any order necessary to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Defendants' request for the total number of patients referred to AMG and/or MHC by the personal injury center is relevant because it may demonstrate a special relationship between the expert witnesses and the legal counsel that could demonstrate the possible bias of the expert witnesses. Therefore, this information is discoverable; however, in light of the time and expense required in composing a list of referred patients, Defendants shall pay one-half the costs associated with composing the list. Defendants' request for a computer printout of AMG's and MHC's current patients is privileged from discovery pursuant to the state's broad interpretation of health care provider-patient privilege. Therefore, the information is not discoverable. Also, such a printout does not appear to be relevant to the litigation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Basic Rule:

Any matter which is privileged is not within the scope of discovery.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us