Lynch v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

Filing 113

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION re 110 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 4/6/2018. (emt, )COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Participants regi stered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Donna Lynch served electronically via CM/ECF to the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
DONNA LYNCH,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIVIL NO. 16-00213 DKW-KSC
ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
REQUESTS FOR MEDICAL
INFORMATION

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

On March 31, 2018, Plaintiff Donna Lynch, proceeding pro se, filed
Objections (Dkt. No. 110) to Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association,
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Bank of America, N.A.’s request that she
execute medical releases, as directed by the Court’s March 2, 2018 Order Regarding
Limited Discovery (Dkt. No. 101).1 On April 4, 2018, Defendants filed their
response, requesting that the Court provide no further extensions of time and
immediately rule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or,

1

In response to Lynch’s Third Motion For Enlargement of Time for Opposing Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State A Claim (“Motion for Extension”), the Court held a status conference on
February 8, 2018. Dkt. No. 94 (2/8/18 Court Minutes). The parties thereafter submitted letter
briefs addressing limited discovery concerning the bases for Plaintiff’s numerous extension
requests, including her alleged physical and cognitive impairments. Dkt. Nos. 96 (Defs.’ 2/15/18
Letter Br.) and 97 (Pl.’s 2/22/18 Letter Br.). The Court thereafter held a further status conference
on March 2, 2018 regarding the scope of Defendants’ proposed discovery. Dkt. No. 102 (3/2/18
Court Minutes). The March 2, 2018 Order followed.

alternatively, that Lynch be compelled to execute the medical releases. Dkt. No.
112. Because Defendants’ requests for medical authorization are neither overbroad
nor unduly burdensome, and are otherwise consistent with the Court’s March 2,
2018 Order Regarding Limited Discovery, the Court OVERRULES Lynch’s
Objections.
Following the March 2, 2018 status and discovery conference, the Court
issued its Order Regarding Limited Discovery, directing in part:
1. Within seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall
provide Defendants with a list of any and all medical
providers whom she was treated by or consulted with for any
and all physical or cognitive issues, conditions, injuries, and
ailments from the date Plaintiff initiated this litigation, April
4, 2016; with respect to each listed medical provider, Plaintiff
shall identify the issues, conditions, injuries and ailments for
which Plaintiff was treated by or consulted with that medical
provider and also the time periods during which she was
treated by or consulted with the medical provider;
2. Within seven days of receipt of Plaintiffs’ list, described in
Paragraph 1, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with releases
for her execution authorizing each of those providers: (1) to
release Plaintiff’s medical records from April 4, 2016 to
present directly to Defendants, and (2) to respond to a short
questionnaire asking pertinent questions relating to Plaintiff’s
physical and mental ability to participate in this litigation;
3. Within seven days of receiving the medical releases, Plaintiff
shall execute and return the releases to Defendants;

2

4. Defendants shall then provide the executed releases and short
questionnaire to Plaintiff’s medical providers and request
copies of Plaintiff’s medical records[.]
3/2/18 Order at 2–3.
Lynch now objects to executing the medical releases provided to her by
Defendants because (1) the releases do not also include the short questionnaire to be
completed by her medical providers; and because (2) requiring her to release all her
medical records from the relevant time period, as ordered by the Court, is overbroad,
excessive, and unnecessary. These objections are wholly without merit.
First, as to the latter issue, the Court heard and considered Lynch’s arguments
at the February 8 and March 2, 2018 hearings, and again in her written submissions.
See Dkt. Nos. 97 (Pl.’s 2/22/18 Letter Br.) and 110 (3/31/18 Obj.). As the Court
previously informed Lynch, her numerous requests for extensions of time each
placed her medical condition squarely at issue. Because Lynch made relevant her
medical condition, by repeatedly relying upon her cognitive and physical
impairments to justify extensions of time, the Court permitted limited discovery into
these issues. While Defendants sought discovery of medical information that
predated the filing of this action, the Court ordered that discovery for present
purposes should be limited to the approximately two years that this action has been
pending. In other words, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants’
3

discovery request, and determined that the discovery of the medical information
described in the 3/2/18 Order is appropriate, relevant, and proportional to the needs
of the case. The narrowly tailored discovery ordered by the Court is neither
overbroad, unduly burdensome, nor oppressive.
Second, Defendants have complied with the parameters of the Court’s Order
Regarding Limited Discovery. Defendants were directed to “provide Plaintiff with
releases for her execution authorizing each of [her medical] providers: (1) to release
Plaintiff’s medical records from April 4, 2016 to present directly to Defendants, and
(2) to respond to a short questionnaire asking pertinent questions relating to
Plaintiff’s physical and mental ability to participate in this litigation.” 3/2/18 Order
at 2–3, ¶ 2. To be clear, the Court’s 3/2/18 Order does not require Defendants to
provide Lynch with a copy of their questionnaires prior to her execution of the
releases. Defendants represent that they intend to prepare short questionnaires
seeking information regarding Lynch’s medical and physical condition, her
treatment, and the effect on her physical and cognitive ability to participate in the
litigation after reviewing the records submitted by her medical providers. Defs.’
Response at 5. Defendants represent that this approach, which is not foreclosed by
the Court’s Order, makes the most sense as it will allow them to tailor their
questions, based on the information contained in the corresponding providers’
4

records. As a result, Defendants do not currently have any questionnaires to share.
Defendants are directed to provide Lynch with copies of the short questionnaires,
upon service on the providers.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Lynch’s Objections and
DIRECTS her to execute and return to Defendants the medical releases provided to
her within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. The Court CAUTIONS Lynch
that if she fails to timely execute and return the medical releases, or otherwise
comply with this Order, the Court intends to deny her Motion for Extension (Dkt.
No. 90) and proceed to adjudicate forthwith Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 76).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 6, 2018 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

Lynch v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n et al.; CV 16-00213 DKW-KSC; ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION

5