Scott v. USA

Filing 159

ORDER GRANTING 155 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/10/2021. (kss)

Case 3:18-cv-00629-NJR Document 159 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #1290

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CRAIG SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:18-CV-629-NJR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
PROTESTANT MEMORIAL MEDICAL
CENTER, INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is a motion to compel filed by Plaintiff Craig Scott
directed toward Defendant Protestant Memorial Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Memorial
Hospital (“Memorial Hospital”) (Doc. 155). Memorial Hospital filed a timely response in
opposition (Doc. 157). The Court now rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
With this motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of the provider
dictionaries from an automated fax delivery system for twenty-eight civilian clinic
physicians and residents 1 from 2013 to 2015 by Defendant Memorial Hospital (Doc. 155).
Defendant Memorial Hospital has already supplied the fax dictionaries for Dr. Erynn
Elleby, Plaintiff’s primary care physician. Because the fax number associated with Dr.

1

E. Charles Robacker; Michael Temporal; Cameron Gilmore; Robert Schaefer; Tina Kearney; Terrance
Craion; Sarah Gebauer; Shannon Witty; Anne Nash; Alka Aggarwal; Katie Awad; Alex LaBounty; Komal
Hanif; Marjorie Gutherie; Richard Shaffer; Sabha Cheema; Gia Patel; Bart Worthington; Kristina
Raveendran; Steven Whealon; Reena Patel; Graham Foster; Stacy Jefferson; Hayley Liptak; Andrew
Hellenga; Aaron Lloyd; Adam Pasternak; and Jessica Grimes.

Page 1 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00629-NJR Document 159 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #1291

Elleby within Memorial Hospital’s fax system was used by a neighboring military clinic
operated by the United States Air Force, Memorial Hospital also provided fax dictionaries
for fifty providers at the military clinic (Doc. 157-1). As part of his Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Memorial Hospital failed to timely and properly transmit
records of care concerning Plaintiff to his primary care physician (Doc. 31). Plaintiff
asserts that the United States military clinic did not receive any medical records directed
to Dr. Elleby (Doc. 155). Further, Plaintiff states that the medical records clerks at the
civilian clinic, where Dr. Elleby practiced, frequently faced issues with receiving faxes
from Memorial Hospital (Id.). Considering this information, Plaintiff argues that provider
dictionaries for twenty-eight civilian clinic providers are relevant to know what number
Memorial Hospital was using for clinic providers between 2013-2015 and to know
whether any changes were made to the numbers used during that time (Id.).
In response, Defendant Memorial Hospital argues that the requested
documentation is burdensome and overly broad as it pertains to physicians that did not
treat Plaintiff and have no relationship to the issues in the case (Doc. 157). Defendant also
points to Dr. Elleby’s testimony that she has no recollection of issues receiving medical
records from Memorial Hospital to show that the discovery requested is irrelevant
(Doc. 157).
LEGAL STANDARD
The scope of discovery in federal civil cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 26. A party may object to the relevance of discovery sought, though Rule
26 defines the term broadly. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) permits a party to obtain discovery:

Page 2 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00629-NJR Document 159 Filed 09/10/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #1292

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy,
the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). District courts have broad discretion to control discovery and may
limit the scope of discovery if the discovery sought is obtainable in some less burdensome
manner. Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002). Strong public
policy considerations favor the disclosure of relevant materials such that “before
restricting discovery, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances,
weighing the value of the material sought against the burden of providing it, and taking
into account society’s interest in furthering the truthseeking function in the particular
case before the court.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Here, Plaintiff Scott argues that the requested discovery, provider dictionaries for
twenty-eight civilian clinic providers, is relevant. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that all
parties have placed the reliability of communications between Memorial Hospital and
both the military and civilian clinics into controversy including Memorial Hospital’s
proper fax transmission of emergency room records to Plaintiff’s primary care physician
(Doc. 158). Moreover, the proper transmission of Plaintiff’s medical records is a
component of Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff’s request
is limited in time from 2013-2015 when Dr. Elleby served as a resident in the clinic.
Additionally, the dictionaries requested are limited to twenty-eight providers practicing
Page 3 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00629-NJR Document 159 Filed 09/10/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #1293

in the clinic during the same period. Defendant Memorial Hospital has delivered
provider dictionaries for fifty military clinic physicians, so the information is accessible
and not overly burdensome to produce. The provider dictionaries requested can certainly
lead to the discovery of relevant information, especially with regards to the
communication between Memorial Hospital and the civilian clinic, where Plaintiff’s
primary care physician worked.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Craig Scott’s Motion
to Compel Directed to Defendant Memorial Hospital (Doc. 155). Memorial Hospital is
ORDERED to produce screen shots of the provider dictionaries from their automated fax
delivery system for the twenty-eight civilian clinic physicians identified by Plaintiff 2
between 2013 and 2015 within 14 days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 10, 2021
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

2

See note 1.

Page 4 of 4