Tanner vs. BD LaPlace, LLC
Filing
45
ORDER AND REASONS re 43 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to review the Magistrate Judge's June 20, 2018 Order granting the defendant's motion to compel discovery is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's Order is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 7/23/2018. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PAUL J. TANNER
CIVIL ACTION
V.
NO. 17-5141
BD LAPLACE, LLC
SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s appeal of the Magistrate
Judge’s June 20, 2018 Order granting the defendant’s motion to
compel
discovery.
For
the
following
reasons,
the
Magistrate
Judge’s Order is AFFIRMED.
Background
Paul Tanner was employed at BD LaPlace, LLC as a crane
operator from 2006 until 2016. BD LaPlace is an industrial steel
manufacture based in LaPlace, Louisiana. In early 2016, Tanner’s
employer received several complaints of Tanner’s erratic workplace
behavior and initiated an investigation. 1 BD LaPlace required
Tanner to submit to a mandatory fitness for duty evaluation in
February 2016 administered by a mental health professional. When
Tanner refused to submit to the evaluation, BD LaPlace determined
that Tanner had abandoned his job and terminated his employment on
1
Tanner’s co-workers had reported that Tanner was talking to
himself, openly questioning whether he was seeing things,
confrontational with co-workers, and discussing aloud workplace
shootings.
1
March 4, 2016. Tanner has since been designated as disabled by the
Social Security Administration.
Tanner sued BD LaPlace on May 23, 2017, alleging that it
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it required that
he submit to a mandatory medical evaluation to continue employment.
He also alleged unpaid wages under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act.
He is seeking back pay, front pay, bonus payments, attorney’s fees,
and $100,000 for emotional stress. On September 11, 2017, the
defendant propounded its first set of interrogatories and requests
for production of documents. It sought the plaintiff’s medical
records and information relating to his Social Security disability
designation and benefits. The plaintiff refused to provide the
defendant with any information regarding his mental health or
access to any of his medical records. This dispute made little
progress over the following six months because the plaintiff’s
counsel withdrew on October 12, 2017, and while other counsel
enrolled,
he
also
quickly
withdrew.
The
plaintiff
was
unrepresented for several months until the plaintiff’s current
counsel enrolled on March 23, 2018. On May 11, 2018, the defendant
requested that the plaintiff provide his medical records, his
attempts to obtain subsequent employment, and information relating
to
this
income
after
his
employment
at
BD
LaPlace.
After
unsuccessfully attempting to contact the plaintiff’s counsel to
obtain this information, the defendant moved to compel discovery.
2
It
requested
the
Court
to
compel
the
plaintiff
to
execute
authorizations and/or produce his medical records, his Social
Security
disability
application,
designation
and
benefits
information, his attempts to obtain subsequent employment, and his
income since abandoning his employment with the defendant. The
Magistrate Judge granted the defendant’s motion on June 20, 2018.
The plaintiff moved to review the Magistrate Judge’s order on July
4, 2018.
I.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party
may appeal the ruling of the Magistrate Judge to the District
Judge. A Magistrate Judge is afforded broad discretion in the
resolution of non-dispositive motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);
see
also
28
U.S.C.
§ 363(b)(1)(A).
If
a
party
objects
to
a
Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, the Court
will disturb a Magistrate’s ruling only when the ruling is “clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see
also Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). A finding
is "clearly erroneous" when the reviewing Court is "left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 240 (5th Cir. 2008)(quoting
United States. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
3
II.
The Magistrate Judge declined to issue an Order and Reasons,
but instead included his reasons for granting the defendant’s
motion to compel in a minute entry. He held: “The Plaintiff has
clearly placed at issue in this case his mental condition and
whether he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his
position, he is to execute and provide Defendant with the necessary
authorizations within 10 days.”
The plaintiff seeks review on the grounds that the mental
health records and the financial records are not relevant. The
plaintiff was ordered to produce medical records for the last ten
years, and financial records from 2014 to present. The plaintiff
contends that the defendant violated the ADA by requiring the
plaintiff to undergo an examination for a perceived disability. He
quite mistakenly claims that it is irrelevant whether the plaintiff
actually had a mental ailment. The plaintiff also claims that
financial records from before the plaintiff’s termination are
irrelevant to the issue of damages. However, the plaintiff fails
to reference any case law or provide any further support to
demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge was clearly erroneous in his
holding. The defendant correctly contends that the plaintiff’s
medical history is relevant to determining if he was qualified for
the job, an essential element of an ADA claim. Cannon v. Jacobs
Field Servs. North America, Inc., 813 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir.
4
2016)(holding that to establish a prima facie case under the ADA,
the plaintiff must show that: “(1) the plaintiff has a disability,
or was regarded as disabled; (2) he was qualified for the job; and
(3) he was subject to an adverse employment decision on account of
his disability.”). The defendant adds that it is relevant to the
determination of his mental distress damages claim. It asserts
that the financial documents at issue are relevant to determining
damages.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows a party to
“obtain
discovery
regarding
any
nonprivileged
matter
that
is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.” Discovery is relevant if it is “admissible or
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894
F.2d 1482, 1484 (5th Cir. 1990)(internal quotations omitted).
Privileged information, such as communications between a patient
and his physician or psychotherapist, may be waived when the
patient has placed his mental condition at issue. Stogner v.
Sturdivant, No. 10-125, 2011 WL 4435254, at *5 (M.D. La. Sept. 22,
2011)(“Courts have routinely held that, by putting one’s medical
condition at issue in a lawsuit, a plaintiff waives any privilege
to which he may have otherwise been entitled as to his privacy
interest in his medical records.”); Butler v. Louisiana Dept. of
Public Safety & Corr., No. 12-420, 2013 WL 2407567, at *3 (M.D.
5
La. May 29, 2013)(“If the Court determines, however, that proof of
the elements of Plaintiff's causes of action requires the use of
the privileged material, then the Court is proper to conclude that
the psychotherapist-patient has been waived.”). Courts have held
that the production of medical information and social security
benefit
information
is
relevant
and
proportional
to
an
ADA
disability discrimination claim. Mir v. L-3 Commc’ns Integrated
Sys., L.P., 319 F.R.D. 220, 232 (N.D. Tex. 2016).
The
Magistrate
defendant’s
motion
Judge
to
did
compel.
not
The
erroneously
Magistrate
grant
Judge
was
the
not
unreasonable in determining that the plaintiff’s medical records
are relevant, and that the plaintiff waived the privilege by
putting his medical condition at issue by bringing the suit and
seeking
not
damages
based
unreasonable
relevant
to
to
on
his
conclude
emotional
that
distress.
medical
It
records
is
are
evaluating whether the plaintiff was qualified for
the job or to determine whether the defendant violated the ADA
when it ordered the plaintiff to undergo a medical evaluation
after concerns that he may be experiencing mental health issues.
His financial records are obviously relevant to the determination
of
damages,
admissible
as
or
Tanner’s
may
lead
past
to
and
the
present
admissibility
that may be introduced to evaluate his damages.
6
income
of
are
evidence
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiff’s motion to
review the Magistrate Judge’s June 20, 2018 Order granting the
defendant’s
motion
to
compel
discovery
is
DENIED,
and
the
Magistrate Judge’s Order is AFFIRMED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, July 23, 2018
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?