Parks et al v. Watkins et al
Filing
21
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT ROBERT R. WATKINS, M.D.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 6 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/5/11. (" The court will file the original Complaint under seal. No later than August 9, 2011, Plaintiffs must submit an amended Complaint that deletes the textual reference to the result of (but not the fact of) the MCCP proceeding and deletes the MCCP decision attached as an exhibit to the original Complaint as well. In all other respects, the Complaint may remain unchanged. This amended Complaint will be publicly available.") (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive elec tronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
ROBERT R. WATKINS, M.D.,
)
HAMAKUA HEALTH CENTER, INC.
)
doing business as KOHALA
)
FAMILY HEALTH CENTER,
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
BOGART MUMFORD PARKS,
Individually and as the
Personal Representative of
the Estate of Williams J.
Parks, Deceased,
CHIYA NICHOLE PARKS,
CIVIL NO. 11-00304 SOM/KSC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART,
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
ROBERT R. WATKINS, M.D.’S
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
ROBERT R. WATKINS, M.D.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
I.
INTRODUCTION.
On June 17, 2011, Defendant Robert R. Watkins filed a
motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the ground that it
discloses confidential information regarding a Medical Claims
Conciliation Panel (“MCCP”) decision that is immaterial and
impertinent.
Plaintiffs are not permitted to state the result of
the MCCP decision.
Accordingly, the court grants the motion to
the extent it seeks withdrawal from the publicly available record
of the portion of the Complaint referring to the MCCP’s findings
and of the MCCP decision attached as an exhibit to the Complaint,
but denies the motion in all other respects.
Pursuant to Local
Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without a hearing.1
II.
BACKGROUND FACTS.
Plaintiffs Bogart Mumford Parks (“Bo”) and Chiya Nicole
Parks (“Chiya”), children of William J. Parks (“Mr. Parks”),
filed the present lawsuit against Robert R. Watkins (“Dr.
Watkins”) and the Kohala Family Health Center (“KFHC”).
On July
22, 2009, Mr. Parks, who had metastatic melanoma, passed away at
the age of 61.
See Compl. ¶ 15.
Dr. Watkins had been Mr.
Parks’s personal friend and had served as his primary care
physician for approximately 20 years.
See id. ¶ 16.
As part of
their friendship, Dr. Watkins and Mr. Parks traded their
respective services to each other.
See id. ¶ 17.
Mr. Parks
performed carpentry skills for Dr. Watkins at little or no cost.
See id.
In exchange, Dr. Watkins provided Mr. Parks with
complete medical care, which was funded out of Dr. Watkins’s own
pocket.
See id.
On or about June 2007, Mr. Parks allegedly complained
to Dr. Watkins about an itchy mole on his left upper back.
id. ¶ 20.
See
Plaintiffs say that Dr. Watkins came to Mr. Parks’s
home and removed the mole himself.
See id.
Chiya allegedly
asked Dr. Watkins whether he intended to get the mole biopsied.
See id. ¶ 21.
According to Plaintiffs, Dr. Watkins did not have
1
The moving party failed to comply with Local Rule 83.12,
but the court concludes that the motion nevertheless gave the
required public notice.
2
the mole or the surrounding tissue biopsied.
See id. ¶ 23.
Plaintiffs allege that had Dr. Watkins examined the mole at KFHC
(instead of at Mr. Parks’s home) using proper medical procedures,
he could have alerted Mr. Parks to an early and curable cancer.
See id. ¶ 20.
Plaintiffs also allege that, from at least June
2007 until Mr. Parks’s death two years later on July 22, 2009,
Dr. Watkins failed to properly and timely diagnose, treat, and
refer Mr. Parks or to create proper medical records.
¶ 13.
See id.
They further allege that Dr. Watkins admitted that the
reason for his improper treatment of Mr. Parks was that he did
not want to incur the cost of the biopsy, as he would have had to
pay for that under his arrangement with Mr. Parks.
See id.
¶¶ 42, 49, 51.
Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Hawaii Medical Claims
Conciliation Panel (“MCCP”) pursuant to chapter 671 of the Hawaii
Revised Statutes.
See id. ¶ 11.
On January 6, 2011, the MCCP
issued a decision on Plaintiffs’ claim.
See ECF No. 1, Ex. 2.
On May 9, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this court.
See ECF No. 1.
At issue in this motion to strike is paragraph 11
of the Complaint, in which Plaintiffs disclosed the finding of
the MCCP.2
2
Paragraph 11 of the Complaint reads, in part, “Defendants
are all health care providers as those terms are defined under
the Medical Claims Conciliation Act, Chapter 671, Hawaii Revised
Statutes, as amended. The Plaintiffs have completed the Medical
Claims Conciliation process and have a right to file suit in this
3
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW.
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that the “court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
The court may act
on its own, or on motion made by a party before responding to the
pleading or within 20 days after being served with the pleading.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) and (2).
The function of a 12(f) motion is to avoid the use of
time or money to litigate spurious issues, instead dispensing
with those issues before trial.
Whittlestone, Inc. v.
Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010).
“The
rationale behind granting motions to strike is to avoid prejudice
to a party by preventing a jury from seeing the offensive matter
or giving the allegation any unnecessary notoriety.”
Wailua
Assocs. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 183 F.R.D. 550, 553 (D. Haw.
1998).
Grounds for a motion to strike must be readily apparent
from the face of the pleadings or from materials that may be
judicially noticed.
Id. at 554.
A matter will not be stricken
from a pleading unless it is clear that it can have no possible
bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.
Id.
An immaterial matter is that which has no essential or
matter.” Compl. ¶ 11. This quoted language is followed by an
allegation describing the MCCP’s finding.
4
important relationship to the claims or defenses pled.
5A
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1382 (3d ed. 2004).
An impertinent matter consists
of a statement that does not pertain, and is not necessary, to
the issues in question.
Wailua Assocs., 183 F.R.D. at 553
(noting that an allegation is impertinent when it is irrelevant).
As a general rule, a motion to strike is disfavored
because it is often used as a delaying tactic and because of the
limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.
See Ollier
v. Sweetwater Union High School Dist., 735 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1223
(S.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted).
IV.
ANALYSIS.
In Craft v. Peebles, 78 Haw. 287, 292 n.5, 893 P.2d 138,
143 n.5 (1995), the Hawaii Supreme Court said, “Under HRS chapter
671, MCCP decisions are confidential.”
As Dr. Watkins notes, the
reference to the MCCP finding and the MCCP decision itself are
immaterial because that material is not admissible at trial and
serves no purpose other than to disclose confidential information
to the public.
See Mot. at 3-4, ECF No. 6.
See also Foster v.
A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 61 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1124 (D. Haw. 1999)
(“results of a prior MCCP proceeding are not admissible at
trial”).
Dr. Watkins requests that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be
stricken and that both the Complaint and Exhibit 2 to the
Complaint be removed or sealed so they will not be disclosed to
5
the public.
See Mot. at 4.
Plaintiffs argue that the Craft case is not supported
by the actual language of chapter 671, which does not state that
MCCP decisions are confidential.3
See Opp’n at 3-4, ECF No. 9.
Moreover, they argue, none of the prohibitions of section 617-16
is at risk because they have not sought and will not seek to
introduce the MCCP decision or the Complaint in evidence.
See id. at 7.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that they were allowed
to include the MCCP decision in their pleadings to show that they
have satisfied their jurisdictional burden.
3
Hawaii Revised Statutes section 671-16 provides:
No statement made in the course of the
hearing of the medical claim conciliation
panel shall be admissible in evidence either
as an admission, to impeach the credibility
of a witness, or for any other purpose in any
trial of the action; provided that such
statements may be admissible for the purpose
of section 671-19, hereof. No decision,
conclusion, finding, or recommendation of the
medical claim conciliation panel on the issue
of liability or on the issue of damages shall
be admitted into evidence in any subsequent
trial, nor shall any party to the medical
claim conciliation panel hearing, or the
counsel or other representative of such
party, refer or comment thereon in an opening
statement, an argument, or at any other time,
to the court or jury; provided that such
decision, conclusion, finding, or
recommendation may be admissible for the
purpose of section 671-19, hereof.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-16.
6
The court agrees with Dr. Watkins that the Craft case,
which clearly states that MCCP decisions are confidential,
controls here.
Even though the Hawaii Supreme Court’s referance
to the confidentiality of the MCCP decision is dicta, it is dicta
that is clear and directly on point here.
A federal court is
bound by a state court’s interpretation of its own state law.
See Bradsaw v. Rickey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005).
“A federal court
errs if it interprets a state legal doctrine in a manner that
directly conflicts with the state supreme court’s interpretation
of the law.
It does not matter that the state supreme court’s
statement of the law was dictum if it is perfectly clear and
unambiguous.”
Singh v. Curry, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1256 (E.D.
Cal. 2010) (footnotes omitted).
This court is well aware that a party seeking to seal a
judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a presumption of
public access by demonstrating “compelling reasons.”
See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178
(9th Cir. 2006).
The need to comply with the Hawaii Supreme
Court’s pronouncement on a matter of state law is compelling.
The very use of the word “conciliation” in the term “Medical
Claim Conciliation Panel” makes it clear that the MCCP is a
dispute-resolution mechanism.
Just as confidentiality is thought
to enhance the efficacy of voluntary mediation, the Hawaii
Supreme Court concluded that the very nature of MCCP proceedings
7
required confidentiality.
See also Lum v. Queen’s Medical Ctr.,
69 Haw. 419, 422, 744 P.2d 1205, 1207 (1987) (explaining that the
Hawaii legislature created the MCCP to encourage early settlement
and provide confidentiality); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-19 (“It is
shall be the duty of every person . . . to cooperate with the
medical claim conciliation panel for the purpose of achieving a
prompt, fair, and just disposition or settlement of the claim”).
See also Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4055928, at
*14 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010) (striking paragraph that disclosed
confidential settlement negotiations).
Plaintiffs argue that they properly included a
reference to the MCCP in the Complaint because they were
allegedly required to go to the MCCP before pursuing their claims
in court.
See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-12 (“any person of the
person’s representative claiming that a medical tort has been
committed shall submit a statement of the claim to the medical
claim conciliation panel before a suit based on the claim may be
commenced in any court of this State.”).
Dr. Watkins argues that
the filing of a claim with the MCCP is not a prerequisite to
bringing a suit in federal court, citing McKenzie v. Hawaii
Permanent Medical Group, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D. Haw.
1998).
This court need not here address the disagreement about
whether an MCCP proceeding was required.
8
Required or not, there
is no prejudice to stating the fact that an MCCP proceeding
occurred, and that fact may end up being relevant to certain
(possibly nonjury) issues in this case.
Arguably, for example,
that may have an impact on any award of costs.
By contrast, the court cannot see how the MCCP decision
itself will affect court proceedings in this case.
Even if it
could have such an impact, that circumstance is outweighed by the
Hawaii Supreme Court’s statement that the matter is confidential.
However, it does not follow that the court should strike the
entire Complaint because it refers to the MCCP decision in one
paragraph.
Accordingly, the court grants the motion to the
extent it seeks withdrawal of only the reference to the MCCP
findings and of the decision itself from the public record, but
declines to strike the remainder of the Complaint.
V.
CONCLUSION.
The court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s
motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
original Complaint under seal.
The court will file the
No later than August 9, 2011,
Plaintiffs must submit an amended Complaint that deletes the
textual reference to the result of (but not the fact of) the MCCP
proceeding and deletes the MCCP decision attached as an exhibit
to the original Complaint as well.
In all other respects, the
Complaint may remain unchanged. This amended Complaint will be
publicly available.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
Honolulu, Hawaii, August 5, 2011.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge
Parks v. Watkins, Civ. No. 11-00304 SOM/KSC; ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING
IN PART DEFENDANT ROBERT R. WATKINS, M.D.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT.
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?