Deckler v. Olander et al

Filing 69

ORDER granting 49 Motion to Compel. See attached Ruling. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 5/8/2013. (Garcia, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DAVID DECKLER
v.
CLIFFORD OLANDER AND
TARGET STORES, INC.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. NO. 3:12CV277 (WWE)

RULING RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. # 49]
Plaintiff David Deckler brings this action against
defendants Clifford Olander and Target Stores, Inc., claiming
significant injuries and damages in connection with a motor
vehicle accident on October 27, 2010. Defendants move to compel
plaintiff to provide medical records related to treatment for
injuries sustained prior to the automobile accident at issue in
this case.
Specifically, defendants seek:
(1)

all records for treatment received at Crossroads
Orthopedic Subspecialists LLC prior to the accident on
October 27, 2010;

(2)

all records for prior treatment by Dr. Stephen Carlow
prior to October 27, 2010;

(3)

all records for treatment or consultation for an
abnormal gait and foot pain as reflected in
chiropractic records dated February 8, 2008;

(4)

all records for treatment at Pequot Medical Center on
or about June 1, 2009 for a work related back injury;

(5)

all records for treatment with Dr. Joseph Zepperi for
carpel tunnel syndrome; and,

(6) all records for treatment at Sound Medical
Neurosurgical Associates with Patrick Doherty prior to
October 27, 2010.
For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion to compel
[doc. #49] is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets
forth the scope and limitations of permissible discovery.
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any
party.

For good cause, the court may order discovery of any

matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.
Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Information

that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence is considered relevant for the purposes of
discovery.

See Daval Steel Prods. v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d

1357, 1367 (2d Cir. 1991); Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity &
Deposit Co., 122 F.R.D. 447, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ negligent operation of a
motor vehicle caused plaintiff injuries which, among other
things, have exacerbated his pre-existing medical conditions,
and have inflicted physical and mental pain. [Doc. #1-1, ¶ 6].

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the collision, he has lost
time from his employment and therefore suffered loss of wages.
[Id. at ¶ 10].
Plaintiff has agreed to provide the records from Pequot
Medical Center. With regard to records from Dr. Zepperi,
plaintiff attests that these records no longer exist because Dr.
Zepperi retired from the practice of medicine in 2002 and the
office destroyed its records in 2009. [Doc. #55-1, Exhibit A].
Plaintiff objects to producing the remaining categories of
documents, arguing that the requested documents are unrelated to
plaintiff’s claim and an unnecessary intrusion on his personal
life and medical history.
As to the remaining documents, given the liberal discovery
rules, the Court finds that defendants are entitled to know the
extent of plaintiff’s treatment prior to the accident in order
to defend against plaintiff’s allegations that the accident
exacerbated his pre-existing medical conditions, an element of
his claim for damages. Moreover, the Court rejects plaintiff’s
claim that defendants are not entitled to records for treatment
for abnormal gait and foot pain, or right elbow pain because
these were not injured in the accident. At a minimum, based on
plaintiff’s allegations, defendants are entitled to know the
state of plaintiff’s health prior to the accident. The Court
finds that defendants are entitled to records for treatment

received in the five (5) years prior to the accident.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel [doc. # 49] is
GRANTED. This is not a Recommended Ruling. This is a discovery
ruling or order which is reviewable pursuant to the “clearly
erroneous” statutory standard of review. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2.
As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified
by the district judge upon motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 8th day of May 2013.

_________/s/____
__________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE