Athome Care, Inc. v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society

Filing 54

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 46 Second Motion to Compel the Production of Financial Documents. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ATHOME CARE, INC., an Idaho
corporation,

Case No. 1:12-cv-053-BLW
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, a
North Dakota corporation,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Plaintiff AtHome Care’s Motion to Compel the Production
of Financial Documents (Dkt. 46).
BACKGROUND
AtHome Care is an Idaho corporation providing private duty home care. Compl. ¶
1, Dkt. 1-3. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (“Good Samaritan”) is a
North Dakota corporation headquarted in South Dakota. Id. at ¶ 2. Good Samaritan
provides health services and homes for qualifying individuals in approximately 240
locations across the United States, including four facilities in Idaho. Id.
ORDER - 1

In June 2009, the parties entered into a written agreement to create a private duty
home care pilot project. The pilot project allowed Good Samaritan to use AtHome’s
propriety information for providing private duty home care at the pilot location. Id. at ¶¶
7-8. While the agreement stated that Good Samaritan was only allowed to use the
proprietary information at the pilot location, AtHome contends that Good Samaritan used
the proprietary materials at other locations in violation of the agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.
After the parties failed to resolve their current discovery disputes through meet
and confers and informal mediation with the Court’s staff, AtHome filed the pending
motion to compel.
LEGAL STANDARD
As the Court stated in its earlier opinion dealing with discovery disputes in this
case, the Court may order the “discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) (1). Relevant evidence is any evidence
tending to make the existence of any consequential fact “more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence.” Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Although viewed
in light of Rule 401, “the question of relevancy is to be more loosely construed at the
discovery stage than at the trial . . . .” See 8 Wright, Miller, and Marcus, Federal Practice
& Procedure, § 2008 at p. 125 (2010). That the evidence might be inadmissible does not
preclude discovery so long as the request “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R. Civ.P. 26(b)(1). However, whether the Court
orders information discoverable is subject to the balancing test of Rule 26(b)(2)(C),
ORDER - 2

which requires courts to weigh the probative value of proposed discovery against its
potential burden.
ANALYSIS
AtHome asks the Court to order Good Samaritan to produce financial documents
from the locations where Good Samaritan admits it sent AtHome’s proprietary materials,
and that Good Samaritan also produce the financial documents from the locations where
Good Samaritan’s own documents show that Good Samaritan provides private duty home
care. Good Samaritan suggests that a 30(b)(6) deposition will alleviate Athome’s need for
these documents because there is a misunderstanding about where Good Samaritan
offered private duty home care and because Good Samaritan used only a small portion of
AtHome’s information in its handbook.
The problem for Good Samaritan is that its own discovery responses cloud the
issue. Based upon Good Samaritan’s discovery responses, there does not appear to be any
dispute that Good Samaritan provided at least one or two documents to AtHome which
suggest Good Samaritan offered private duty at locations for which AtHome seeks
financial documents. Bower Aff., Dkt. 47. The Court recognizes that Good Samaritan has
tried to explain that at least one of these documents is inaccurate, but the Court
understands why AtHome would be wary of such an explanation given the list provided
by Good Samaritan. Bower Aff., Dkt. 47. And Good Samaritan’s acknowledgment that
there was some “overlap” in home care and private duty at Good Samaritan locations
which had access to AtHome private duty models makes the discovery request
ORDER - 3

reasonable. Response Brief, p. p.6-7, Dkt. 49. At the very least, it “appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R. Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Finally, the Court recognizes that the parties, through the informal mediation of
this discovery dispute, had agreed to conduct Ms. Hoing’s deposition in an attempt to
resolve the dispute by having Ms. Hoing explain the inaccuracies of the documents
pertaining to private duty at Good Samaritan. The Court also recognizes that although
there was no agreement or promise made by counsel that they could expedite that
deposition, there was an understanding that they would attempt to do so in the interest of
resolving this issue within the discovery deadlines. The Court has no doubt counsel for
Good Samaritan made that effort and did as they promised.
Apparently, however, Ms. Hoing could not expedite her deposition because of
“Good Samaritan’s annual meeting and [her] work and personal schedule.” Hoeing Aff.,
Dkt. 49-15. The Court recognizes that scheduling depositions can be a challenge, but if
the expense associated with producing the documents requested by AtHome were as great
as suggested by Good Samaritan, and if Good Samaritan could have alleviated that
expense through Ms. Hoing’s deposition, the Court believes an earlier deposition should
have been scheduled even it would cause Ms. Hoing some inconvenience in her work or
personal schedule. Under these circumstances, the Court is left to conclude that the
burden of producing the documents does not outweigh their probative value. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion.

ORDER - 4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff AtHome Care’s Motion to Compel the Production of Financial
Documents (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED. Good Samaritan shall produce
financial documents from the locations where Good Samaritan admits it
sent AtHome Care’s proprietary materials, and that Good Samaritan also
produce the financial documents from the locations where Good Samaritan
documents show that Good Samaritan provides private duty home care. The
Court understands this to be the 11 agencies listed in Exhibit B to the
Bower affidavit, and the 32 agencies where Good Samaritan sent the
handbook.

DATED: July 16, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER - 5