Rayburn v. Lezgi Motors, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to compel [Doc. # 57 ] and supplemental motion to compel [Doc. # 59 ] are granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall hav e until December 10, 2013 to execute the medical authorizations attached to defendants' motions that are directed to the treatment providers that have treated plaintiffs head, neck, back, spine, left shoulder, and left hip.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/3/13. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
LEZGI MOTORS, INC., et al.,
Case No. 4:12-CV-1410 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions to compel discovery of
plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff has responded in opposition, and the issues are
This case arises from a motor vehicle accident, in which plaintiff claims that she
sustained injuries to her head, neck, back, spine, left shoulder, and left hip.
Defendants seek to compel plaintiff to execute releases authorizing defendants to
obtain medical records relating to the areas of her body that were injured, dating from
plaintiff’s birth to the present. Plaintiff argues that defendants’ motions to compel are
premature and are without merit. She also argues that the medical authorizations are
overbroad, not targeted to discover relevant information, and would result in an
unnecessary violation of her privacy.
Defendants propounded discovery request to plaintiff, including requests for
medication authorizations. Plaintiff objected to the authorizations because they were
not limited by date. The parties conferred, but could not reach an agreement. Plaintiff
argues that defendants’ motions are premature, because some of the authorizations
attached to the motions were not formally served on her. However, because these
authorizations are also unlimited by date they would have drawn the same objection
that plaintiff expressed earlier. It was unnecessary for the defendants to delay seeking
a ruling on the objections.
Plaintiff has put her physical condition at issue, and defendants are entitled to
discover medical records relating to it.
Defendants have properly tailored their
requests to records pertaining to the treatment of the body parts that plaintiff claims
were injured in the accident. Also, because plaintiff’s disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(a) reveal that she may have sustained injuries to the same areas of her body more
than five years before the accident in this case, defendants’ discovery will not be
restricted in time.
Defendants, however, have not justified their requests for medical records from
plaintiff’s oncologist, obstetrician/gynecologist, or her gastrointestinal treatment
providers. Therefore, the Court will deny defendants’ motions to compel to the extent
such authorizations are requested.
Plaintiff will be directed to sign the medical
authorizations unlimited by time frame, but she will not be required to sign
authorizations addressed to treatment providers that have never provided any
treatment to her head, neck, back, spine, left shoulder, and left hip.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to compel [Doc. #57] and
supplemental motion to compel [Doc. # 59] are granted in part and denied in part
as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until December 10, 2013
to execute the medical authorizations attached to defendants’ motions that are
directed to the treatment providers that have treated plaintiff’s head, neck, back,
spine, left shoulder, and left hip.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2013.
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?