Colon et al v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company et al

Filing 92

ORDER Denying 70 Plaintiff's Rule 72 Objection. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 7/28/2014. (Ramesh, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
OMAR MILTON COLON AND ARLENE
DAVIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
No. 3:13-cv-00325 (JAM)
METRO-NORTH COMMUTER
RAILROAD COMPANY, and
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 72 OBJECTION [Doc. # 70]
Plaintiffs challenge the ruling issued by Magistrate Judge Martinez [Doc. # 68] with
regard to the finding of “good cause” to disclose certain records pertaining to plaintiff Colon‟s
past psychiatric and substance abuse treatment. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Judge
Martinez‟s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). There has been
no showing that the records at issue are maintained in connection with a substance abuse
program that receives federal assistance, as specified by 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(a) and as required
for protection under that statute. But even assuming the program is covered by the law, the
statute permits the court to order disclosure of confidential records for good cause after
“weigh[ing] the public interest and the need for disclosure against the injury to the patient, to the
physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services.” 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(b)(2)(C).
Plaintiffs allege that defendants‟ negligent failures to provide adequate warnings resulted
in Colon‟s severe injuries because, in their absence, Colon “could not appreciate the high voltage
danger presented by Tower #1043, its ladder system and its attached high voltage electric
transmission lines, energy fields, un-insulated wires and the potential for electric arc/shock.”

Am. Compl. ¶ 61, 79. As Judge Martinez found, this allegation places at issue Colon‟s
psychological condition and the substance abuse to which Colon had admitted in discovery. If
plaintiffs contend that Colon climbed the tower because defendants failed to adequately warn
him, defendants are entitled to seek through discovery evidence that would offer an alternative
explanation for Colon‟s actions, especially given that “it is not expected that the general public
will climb lattice work towers supporting electrical wires over railroad tracks.” [Doc. # 62] at 7
(Thompson, J.). Judge Martinez‟s finding of good cause was not clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.
Furthermore, Judge Martinez ordered the production subject to confidentiality
safeguards, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(b)(2)(C) and 42 C.F.R. § 2.64. With regard to
Request #11, the only request for which she found that responsive records might be covered by
42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 and thus the only request for which a “good cause” finding was made,
Judge Martinez emphasized that disclosure was limited to “[o]nly the specific „records of blood
alcohol testing or drug screens‟ from the 48 hours immediately prior to the alleged incident, as
requested in Request #11,” and ordered that any records of Colon‟s psychological or substance
abuse treatment be treated as “Designated Material” under the court‟s Standing Protective Order
[Doc. # 3]. No further limitation or in camera inspection, as requested by plaintiffs, is required.
The discovery ordered and confidentiality safeguards imposed are not clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
Plaintiffs‟ Rule 72 Objection [Doc. # 70] is DENIED. It is so ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport this 28th day of July 2014.

/s/
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge