United States of America et al v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center et al

Filing 96

ORDER denying 84 Motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 1/10/2012. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ex. rel. and ELIN BAKLID-KUNZ, Relator,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-

Case No. 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31DAB

HALIFAX HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER, d/b/a Halifax Health, a/k/a
Halifax Community Health System, a/k/a
Halifax Medical Center and HALIFAX
STAFFING, INC.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 84) filed by the Defendants and the response in opposition (Doc. 95) filed by the
Relator. In resolving the instant motion, the Court has also reviewed certain purportedly
privileged documents filed under seal.
The Defendants contend that the Relator, in the course of her employment with them, came
into possession of a number of documents that are protected by either attorney-client privilege, the
work product doctrine, or both. They contend that the Relator and her counsel wrongfully relied
upon those documents in drafting the qui tam complaint in this case and turned them over to the
United States. The Defendants seek injunctive relief consisting of dismissal of the instant suit
with prejudice and disqualification of Relator’s counsel, as well as a listing of everyone to whom

the allegedly privileged communications were disseminated and an order prohibiting the Relator
from testifying in regard to or relying upon those communications.
Before granting a preliminary injunction, a district court must find that the plaintiffs have
established: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of
irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiffs
outweighs the harm an injunction may cause the defendant; and (4) that granting the injunction
would not disserve the public interest. Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11th Cir.
1994). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” and is “not to be
granted until the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion as to the four prerequisites.”
Northeastern Fl. Chapter of the Ass’n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d
1283, 1285 (11th Cir.1990) (internal quotation omitted).
After reviewing the 31 documents filed under seal, the Court finds that – at first blush,
anyway – at least some the documents may have been subject to attorney-client privilege or the
work-product doctrine. However, the Defendants have made no showing whatsoever that they
face a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the case is not dismissed with prejudice or opposing
counsel are not disqualified and so forth. The Defendants argue that they have been irreparably
harmed by the utilization of these documents in the preparation of the instant case against them.
But, again, the Defendants have made no showing whatsoever in this regard. They have not, for
example, identified any damaging information set forth in the Complaint of which the Relator
would not have been aware but for her (purportedly) wrongful utilization of these documents.
Moreover, even if the Defendants had demonstrated that some actual harm had occurred, a

-2-

showing of past harm would not satisfy the requirement of a substantial threat of irreparable injury
needed to obtain a preliminary injunction.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 84) filed
by the Defendants is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on January 10, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-3-