Waters v. Taylor & Hall Transport, LLC et al

Filing 71

ORDER GRANTING 50 MOTION to Quash filed by The Orthopedic Center of St. Louis, MFG Spine, LLC, West County Care Center, Pain & Rehabilitation Specialists of St. Louis, MRI Partners of Chesterfield, St. Louis Spine & Orthopedic Surgery Center, and CT Partners of Chesterfield; AND GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 61 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by Thomas Waters. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 3/30/2018. (ely)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
THOMAS WATERS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TAYLOR & HALL TRANSPORT, LLC, and )
RICKY URHAHN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.17-cv-191-SMY-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Motions to Quash Defendants’ Subpoena (Docs. 50
and 61) filed by Plaintiff and Interested Parties MFG Spine, LLC, MRI Partners of Chesterfield,
Pain & Rehabilitation Specialists of St. Louis, St. Louis Spine & Orthopedic Surgery Center, the
Orthopedic Center of St. Louis, CT Partners of Chesterfield, and West County Care Center 1
(collectively “the Gornet entites”). Defendants filed timely responses to both motions.
This case arises from a motor vehicle accident, in which Plaintiff claims that he sustained
severe injury to his cervical spine. The subpoenas at issue were sent to each of the Interested
Parties listed above which provided treatment to Plaintiff and require each entity to produce
medical and billing records. Specifically at issue is Item #6 of each subpoena which calls for the
production of the following documents: “The amount of payments [Subpoenaed Entity] received
from Stephen Shultz and/or his law firm Schultz & Myers’s trust account or the firm’s account in
payment of a patient’s medical services; and all W9s in support, for the past 5 years.”

1

Dr. Gornet has testified that he has no ownership interest in West County Care Center. He is the
sole owner of MFG Spine, LLC, and a partial owner of the other five subpoenaed entities.
Page 1 of 3

Plaintiff and the Interested Parties argue Item #6 should be quashed because the
information sought is irrelevant and overbroad. They assert payments received with respect to
medical services for unrelated patients have nothing to do with the issues of this case and would
invite meaningless detours into collateral issues. The Interested Parties further argue that even in
the context of retained experts, discovery must be limited to the percentage of the expert’s gross
income derived from forensic medicine and that actual dollar amounts are out of bounds.
Defendants argue the information sought by the subpoenas to the Dr. Gornet entities is
relevant to Dr. Gornet’s bias, which is relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages. Defendants
believe there is significant evidence of an ongoing financial relationship between Dr. Gornet and
the law firm Schultz & Myers. Defendants assert that prior to any type of treatment and as part of
Dr. Gornet’s intake process for patients with personal injury claims, the patient is required to sign
a “Notice of Doctor’s Lien” which authorizes his attorney to pay directly to Dr. Gornet all monies
owed from any settlement or judgment. Defendants allege that this arrangement created a
pecuniary interest for Dr. Gornet in the outcome of the personal injury case because if there is no
settlement or judgment in the patient’s favor then his only recourse is to collect from the patient
directly. Defendants assert that collecting directly from Plaintiff in this case would be a daunting
prospect for Dr. Gornet because his entities have billed over $250,000 for medical treatment.
Defendants further assert their request is narrowly tailored to the specific issue of the referral
relationship because it only asks for documentation of payments related to patients that are
represented by Shultz & Myers in the past five years.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “parties may obtain 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(1). “The Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative
Page 2 of 3

value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 403. The Seventh Circuit has recognized a trial court’s
“broad discretion over discovery matters.” Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928, 944 (7th Cir. 2004).
The Court finds that the request in Item #6 of each subpoena is overly broad and not
proportional to the needs of the case. While Dr. Gornet is a treating physician rather than an
expert in this case, the federal case law on assessing bias of medical experts in instructive. In the
case of experts, disclosing the proportion of income that is derived from litigation activities is
sufficient to examine bias. Defendants have failed to show why a more intrusive disclosure is
necessary to prove bias of a treating physician. Producing payments related to patients that are
not parties to this case confuses the issues and the burden of the production outweighs any
probative value relevant to bias. The Motions to Quash Item #6 are GRANTED.
Plaintiff also filed an objection to Item #10 which requests information concerning
ownership of each subpoenaed entity. Plaintiff’s objection is based on relevance. The Interested
Parties did not object to this portion of the subpoena. Plaintiff has no privilege or legitimate
interest in the information requested by Item #10; therefore, Plaintiff’s objection to Item #10 is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 30, 2018
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3