Summary
allowing discovery of records reflecting plaintiff's diagnosis with manic depression, bipolar disorder, and borderline personality disorder as relevant to emotional distress claim but denying request for records that provided no time or type of treatment limitations
Summary of this case from Giarratano v. Huntington Ingalls Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No: 00-1960 Section: "T" (4)
June 13, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants' Motion to Compel (doc. #8) production of plaintiff's medical records from Chaubert Medical Center and Terrebonne General Medical Center. Also before the Court is plaintiff's counter Motion to Strike (doc. #13) the defendants' motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 37. 1E. Alternatively, the plaintiff requests that the Court deny the defendants' motion on the merits, in so much as the request for production of all medical records is overly broad in scope and seeks privileged medical information, not relevant to this lawsuit. The plaintiff also requests an award of attorney's fees incurred in filing her motion.
I. Background
The plaintiff, Victoria W., was an inmate at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex ("TPCJC") from July 28, 1999 until October 13, 1999. Record doc. #1, P1's Complaint ¶ 2. Upon admission to the TPCJC and after she received a medical examination,
Victoria W. is a pseudonym for plaintiff's real name. plaintiff alleges that she learned for the first time that she was pregnant and notified prison personnel that she wished to terminate her pregnancy. Id.. at ¶ 3. However, prison personnel allegedly informed plaintiff that, pursuant to established policy, they would not release her to obtain an abortion unless she hired an attorney and received a court order authorizing the procedure. Id.. at ¶ 4. She alleges that she did not receive a court order prior to her release on October 13, 1999, at which time she was twenty-five weeks pregnant and no longer able to have an abortion under Louisiana law. Id.. at ¶ 5. As a result, on January 20, 2000, plaintiff underwent a caesarean section and gave birth to a child who she ultimately gave up for adoption. Id.. at ¶ 6.
Victoria W. filed the instant lawsuit on July 5, 2000, seeking to recover damages for physical discomfort and pain, severe emotional distress, and humihation under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Louisiana Constitution, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as under state law theories of intentional and/or negligent inflection of emotional distress. Id.. at ¶ 80-82.
During the course of discovery, the defendants, on October 13, 2000, served subpoenas on Chaubert Medical Center and Terrebonne General Medical Center, requiring production of:
"any and all medical records, claims, insurance policies including but not limited to medical reports, EMT records and reports, statements, video tapes, bills receipts, testings, discharge summaries, doctors notes, x-rays, including any report summarizing x-rays, and any and all rehabilitation records and reports, etc. for medical treatment provided to __________ for treatment rendered up to and including the present date, including any and all documents, records, reports, etc., in your possession, as listed above, for any injuries sustained from any incident."See Defendants' Exh. "G." The instant motions followed.
By Minute Entry dated December 8, 2000, the plaintiff's motion was granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part. Specifically, the Court denied the plaintiff's request to strike for failure to comply with Local Rule 37. lB. Next, the Court sustained the plaintiff's privilege objection and held that, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2, any records reflecting treatment for substance abuse are not discoverable. Finally, the Court deferred ruling on the plaintiff's general relevancy objection and request for attorney's fees, pending an in camera inspection of the records. The Court, having now carefully reviewed the records, the submissions of the parties, and the applicable law, will proceed with an analysis of the plaintiff's relevancy objection.
See Rec. doc. #20, December 8, 2000 Minute Entry (Roby, J.).
In accordance with the undersigned's December 8, 2000 order, certain records being produced under this order have been redacted.
II. Analysis
Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that parties may obtain discovery of any non privileged matter which is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). In the instant case, the plaintiff seeks damages for physical pain and suffering, allegedly caused as a result of giving birth to an unwanted child, while in prison. The Court finds that these records may be probative of the extent of the plaintiff's pain, suffering, and emotional damages. Thus, because the plaintiff put her medical history or treatment during her pregnancy at issue, these records are discoverable.
The medical records also reflect that the plaintiff has been diagnosed with manic depression, bipolar disorder, and borderline personality disorder. The Court finds that these records are likewise relevant to the plaintiff's general claim for emotional distress damages. Additionally, this information is relevant to the preparation of defendants' defenses against plaintiff's state law intentional and negligent inflection of emotional distress claims. See Doe v. City of Chula Vista, 196 F.R.D. 562, 568 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (when plaintiff brings claim for emotional distress damages, defendant is entitled to show that other factors may have contributed to plaintiff's damages); Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transporation Authority, 1997 WL 597905 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 1997) (motion to compel production of plaintiff's psychiatric records granted); 1995 WL 731696 (E.D. La. Dec. 7, 1995)(Vance, J.) (finding records of plaintiff's psychiatric counseling are relevant to the extent they may provide defendants with an alternative explanation for emotional distress claim). Therefore, the Court finds that these medical records are also discoverable.
The defendants, however, have not offered a sufficient explanation for the relevance of all other medical records. As drafted, the subpoenas are overly broad and ambiguous, in that they purport to require the entire universe of plaintiff's medical records, without regard to the time or type of treatment sought. While the defendants predict that the plaintiff will contend that an abortion was a medical necessity, the pleadings do not support this contention. Therefore, with the exception of records specifically set forth herein, the plaintiff's relevancy objection is sustained.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Compel (doc. #8) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1) The motion is GRANTED to the extent defendants seek production of medical records relating to plaintiff's 1999 pregnancy and psychiatric treatment. The defendants are instructed to retrieve the non-protected records from the undersigned's chambers no later than Monday, June 18, 2001.
2) — The motion is DENIED to the extent defendants seek production of medical records not specifically set forth herein.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Strike (doc. #13) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1) The motion is GRANTED to the extent plaintiff seeks to prohibit production of medical records not specifically set forth herein. The plaintiff is instructed to retrieve the protected records from the undersigned's chambers no later than Monday, June 18, 2001.
2) The motion is DENIED to the extent plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting production of medical records relating to plaintiff's 1999 pregnancy and psychiatric treatment, and an award of attorney's fees incurred in filing the subject motion.