UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. REID HOSPITAL & HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC. et al

Filing 95

ORDER granting Attorney General's 89 Motion to Quash (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 7/17/2013. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

CAROL COOTS, et al.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REID HOSPITAL & HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv-526-JMS-TAB

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH
Plaintiff Carol Coots filed a complaint against Reid Hospital alleging wrongful
termination for refusing to perform what she believed was fraudulent conduct. [Docket No. 61.]
Coots served Reid with a first set of interrogatories and request for documents asking for all
physicians’ provider numbers and all facts and evidence relating to this case. [Docket No. 91-2.]
The Attorney General of Indiana moves to quash Coots’ discovery requests on the
grounds that the information sought: (1) encompasses attorney work product, and (2) is excepted
from the public record disclosure requirements of Indiana Code 5-14-3-4. Coots did not file a
response opposing the Attorney General’s motion to quash. For reasons more fully set forth
below, the Attorney General’s motion [Docket No. 89] is granted.
Coots’ document requests and interrogatories are exceedingly broad. See Holland v. City
of Gary, No. 2:10-CV-454-PRC, 2012 WL 1388345 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 16, 2012). Consequently,
Coots’ requests are likely to implicate—and according to the Attorney General do
implicate—attorney work product. See Menasha Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 707 F.3d 846,

1

847 (7th Cir. 2013) (“The core of attorney work product consists of ‘the mental impressions,
conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s attorney or other representative concerning
the litigation.’”). Coots’ failure to respond to this motion prevents the Court from considering
contrary arguments Coots might have proffered.
Although public records in Indiana typically must be disclosed when requested, and
Coots’ requests include public records, there are exceptions. Pursuant to Indiana Code 5-14-34(a)(2), the Indiana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit declared its records confidential regarding
criminal and civil investigations.1 This case involves a civil investigation. Moreover, Indiana
Code 5-14-3-4(a)(3) and HIPAA protect the confidentiality of patient medical records and
charts. Indiana Code 5-14-3-4(a)(9) also protects the confidentiality of patient medical records
created by providers.
These provisions prohibit the disclosure of many, if not all, of the documents and public
records requested by Coots. These confidentiality provisions, particularly in light of Coots’
failure to oppose the Attorney General’s motion to quash, support granting the Attorney
General’s motion. Accordingly, the Attorney General’s motion to quash Coots’ request for
production of documents and first set of interrogatories [Docket No. 89] is granted.
DATED: 07/17/2013
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

1

The MFCU is a health oversight agency as defined by the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and has a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the material it
gathers in its investigations.
2

Copies to:
Robert Daniel Craven
CRAVEN HOOVER & BLAZEK P.C.
[e-mail]
David Benjamin Honig
HALL RENDER KILLIAN HEATH & LYMAN
[e-mail]
Andrew B. Howk
HALL, RENDER, KILLIAN, HEATH & LYMAN
[e-mail]
Steven A. Hunt
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
Shelese M. Woods
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]

3