Sheets et al v. Sorrento Villas, Section 5, Association, Inc. et al

Filing 151

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 133 Motion to Compel Plaintiff Kirsten Sheets to Respond to Defendants' Interrogatory No. Twenty (20). Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 11/4/2016. (LBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KIRSTEN SHEETS, JASON KALAGHER
and JANSON MURPHY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:15-cv-1674-T-30JSS

SORRENTO VILLAS, SECTION 5,
ASSOCIATION, INC., ARGUS
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
JAMES TOMPKINS, BOB BRUNO,
NANCY HUBBARD, CLAUDIA
DORNBACK, HARLAN BUD FRIDDLE,
JACK MCCOPPEN and LOYOLA SIEP,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Compel Plaintiff Kirsten Sheets to
Respond to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. Twenty (20) (“Motion”) (Dkt. 133), filed by Defendant
Argus Property Management, Inc. (“Argus”),1 and Plaintiff Kirsten Sheets’s response in
opposition (Dkt. 148). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted in part and denied in
part.
In the Motion, Argus seeks an order compelling Sheets to produce answers in response to
an interrogatory from Argus’s First Set of Interrogatories, in which Argus request Sheets to:
List the names and business addresses of all other physicians, medical facilities or
other health care providers by whom or at which you have been examined or treated
in the past ten years; and state as to each the dates of examination or treatment and
condition or injury for which you were examined or treated.

1

Defendant Linda Benford is also a movant, but, since the filing of the Motion, Ms. Benford’s motion for summary
judgment was granted and judgment was entered in Ms. Benford’s favor. (Dkts. 137, 138.)

(“Interrogatory 20”) (Dkt. 133-1.) Sheets served objections to Interrogatory 20, objecting on the
bases that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks confidential information
not relevant or proportional to the claims and defenses of the case. (Dkt. 133-2.) Argus contends
that Sheets has not shown how this request is overly broad or unduly burdensome. (Dkt. 133 ¶ 3.)
Further, Argus argues that the information sought by the request is relevant to Sheets’s claim, in
the Second Amended Complaint, that Sheets suffers from physical and mental impairments
because Sheets’s “broad description of multiple physical and mental impairments necessitates the
gathering of records to determine the type and extent of same.” (Dkt. 133 ¶ 4.) The request is also
relevant, Argus contends, to its affirmative defense that Sheets failed to sufficiently plead the
existence of a handicap under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). (Dkt. 133 ¶ 5.) Finally, the request
is proportional to the needs of the case, Argus argues, because Argus “needs to know the full extent
of Kirsten Sheets’s health condition(s), and therefore need[s] to know who her healthcare providers
have been.” (Dkt. 133 ¶ 6.)
In response, Sheets argues that this Court, in two prior orders (See Dkts. 68 and 76), has
already “set forth the boundaries of permissible discovery in this case as to [Sheets’s] medical
conditions or mental health.” (Dkt. 148 ¶¶ 9–12.) The Court has addressed, in two prior orders,
Argus’s discovery requests for Sheets’s medical records. (See Dkts. 68, 76.) In the first order,
Plaintiffs moved for a protective order regarding subpoenas Argus served on Sheets’s medical
provider Sarasota Neurology, P.A., and eight of Sheets’s medical providers Plaintiffs disclosed in
their expert witness disclosure. (Dkt. 68.) The subpoena to Sarasota Neurology requested all of
Sheets’s medical records. (Dkt. 68 at 4.) Upon review, the Court determined that this request was
overly broad and sought information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action because it
was unlimited in timeframe and “encompasse[d] records unrelated to the physical or mental

-2-

impairments which substantially limit one or more of Sheets’s major life activities.” (Dkt. 68 at
6.) Thus, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order to the extent that the subpoena
requested documents “unrelated to whether Sheets has the physical impairments specifically
alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, which include Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Postural
Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, and Fibromyalgia, and to Sheets’s use of an emotional support
animal.” (Dkt. 68 at 6.) Further, the Court determined that Argus was entitled discovery related
to Sheets’s allegations of suffering emotional distress and embarrassment, but limited the
timeframe for which Argus could request such discovery to “any emotional distress that Sheets
reported from 2013, when Sheets first requested permission to maintain the invisible fence (see
Dkt. 32 ¶ 68), to the present.” (Dkt. 68 at 6–7.)
In the Court’s second order, Plaintiffs moved for a protective order regarding subpoenas
Argus served on Sheets’s medical providers Plaintiffs disclosed as expert witnesses, in which
Argus requested “all documents regarding Kirsten Sheets.” (Dkt. 76 at 4.) The Court granted
Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order without prejudice to Argus to serve new subpoenas
requesting discovery within the scope permitted by the Court in its previous order (Dkt. 68)—i.e.,
discovery related to (1) the scope of the experts’ testimony, (2) whether Sheets has the physical
impairments alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, (3) Sheets’s use of an emotional support
animal, and (4) emotional distress Sheets reported from 2013 to the present. (Dkt. 76 at 4–5.)
Sheets argues that Interrogatory 20 is not within the scope of the Court’s prior orders
because Argus has not made a showing that its request is related to whether Sheets has the physical
impairments she alleges she suffers or Plaintiffs’ allegations of emotional distress from 2013 to
present. (Dkt. 148 ¶ 13.) Rather, Sheets contends, Interrogatory 20 is an impermissible blanket
request for ten years of Sheets’s medical history. (Dkt. 148 ¶ 13.) Finally, Sheets argues,

-3-

Defendants have deposed Sheets’s treating physicians and obtained Sheets’s medical records from
Sheets’s treating physicians and Argus has knowledge of Sheets’s disabilities that Argus obtained
as part of this litigation and prior administrative actions between the parties. (Dkt. 148 ¶¶ 18–19,
25– 29.)
A party is entitled to “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
In the Second Amended Complaint, Sheets alleges that she suffers a handicap within the meaning
of the FHA because “she suffers from physical and mental impairments which substantially limit
one or more of her major life activities,” and that she has been diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos
Syndrome, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, “among other physical
impairments.” (Dkt. 32 ¶¶ 22, 133, 161, 191.) Further, Sheets asserts that she is sometimes unable
to walk, has a medical need for an emotional support animal, and has suffered “great emotional
distress and embarrassment” due to Defendants’ alleged actions. (Dkt. 32 ¶¶ 134, 136, 158, 162,
164, 186, 192, 207.) In response, Argus asserts, as an affirmative defense, that Plaintiffs failed to
allege that Sheets “suffers from a recognized handicap” under the FHA. (Dkt. 34 ¶ 221.)
As the Court has held in previous orders (Dkts. 68, 76), Argus is entitled to discovery
related to Sheets’s medical history that is relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses, which the
Court has determined to be discovery related to (1) the medical conditions Sheets alleges she
suffers in the Second Amended Complaint, which include Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Postural
Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, and Fibromyalgia, (2) Sheets’s use of an emotional support
animal, and (3) Sheets’s reports of emotional distress from 2013 to the present. Thus, in response
to Interrogatory 20, Argus is entitled to the names and addresses of physicians, medical facilities,
or health care providers (1) who treated Sheets for the conditions she alleges she suffers in the

-4-

Second Amended Complaint, (2) who prescribed or recommended Sheets’s use of an emotional
support animal, and (3) who treated Sheets for her reports of emotional distress from 2013 to the
present (“Subject Matter Parameters”). Sheets, in responding to Interrogatory 20, should identify:
(1) the month and year in which these physicians, medical facilities, or health care providers
provided her treatment within the Subject Matter Parameters and (2) Sheets’s condition that the
physicians, medical facilities, or health care providers were treating and/or the type of treatment
they provided, again, within the Subject Matter Parameters. Thus, the Motion is granted to the
extent provided herein and denied in all other respects. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion (Dkt. 133) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 4, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-5-