McArdle v. Ahmed

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 26 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for discovery dispute, and 27 Order Acknowledging Receipt of Documents for Privilege Review. Disputed documents are privileged and do not have to be produced.Signed by Judge William I. Arbuckle, III on 03/07/13. (Arbuckle, William)

UNITED STATES DISCOURT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Kenneth McArdle,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff
v.
Akbar F. Ahmed, M.D.,
Defendant

Case No. 3:11-CV-01280
(Judge Mannion)
(Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)

ORDER

Before the Court is a Stipulated Agreement to Permit the Court to Conduct
an In Camera Review of Withheld Documents from the Credentialing File of Dr.
Ahmed. (Doc. No. 24). On January 17, 2013, this case was referred to a
Magistrate Judge for resolution. (Doc. No. 26). Having conducted a detailed in
camera review of these forty five itemized documents (documents 29 & 30 are
duplicates)1 we conclude that these records all fall within one or more of the
claimed privileges and are not required to be produced.
I.

BACKGROUND
On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff Kenneth McArdle initiated this medical

malpractice action by filing a three count Complaint (Doc. No. 1) alleging: (1)

1

 Despite

this minor error the Court would like to express appreciation to
defendant’s counsel for the organized fashion in which the approximately 168
pages of documents were produced.   
Page 1 of 5 

Reckless Conduct; (2) Failure to Obtain Informed Consent; and (3) Fraud,
Concealment, and Misrepresentation.
The Plaintiff initially sought medical treatment from the Defendant on
August 14, 2009 at the Pocano Medical Center. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 9, 10). The
Defendant diagnosed the Plaintiff with a right inguinal hernia, and recommended
that the Plaintiff undergo surgery. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 10).
On August 25, 2009, the Plaintiff underwent surgery to repair an inguinal
hernia. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 12). The surgery involved placing mesh in the area of the
hernia to repair it. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 12). The Plaintiff suffered no immediate
complications, and was discharged the same day as the surgery. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 13).
On March 10, 2010, the Plaintiff sought medical treatment from Dr.
Matthew Indeck at Geisinger Wyoming Valley. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 15). The Plaintiff
was experiencing pain and numbness in his right groin. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 15). The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with “mesh complications with chronic pain.” (Doc. No. 1
¶ 16).
On April 9, 2010, the Plaintiff underwent a mesh repair surgery performed
by Doctor Indeck. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 17). During the course of the second surgery, the
Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Indeck discovered no evidence of a right inguinal
hernia. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 17). The Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Indeck observed that mesh
had been used in an operation performed on the Plaintiff’s superficial inguinal ring
Page 2 of 5 

(instead of the internal inguinal ring) which the Plaintiff believes has resulted in
permanent injuries. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 17).
During the course of discovery in this case the plaintiff requested the
Credentialing File of the defendant Doctor Ahmed from the Pocono Medical
Center. (Doc. No. 24 ¶ 2). On November 6, 2012, the defendant produced
documents responsive to the plaintiff’s request. (Doc. No. 24 at 20). Defendant’s
response included the production of non-privileged portions of Doctor Ahmed’s
credentialing file as well as a privilege log. (Doc. No. 24 ¶ 3). On January 14,
2013 the parties filed a stipulated agreement that the credentialing documents not
produced be reviewed in camera by the Court in order to make a determination of
whether any of the withheld documents are discoverable. On February 7, 2013, we
received this in camera submission, which consists of forty-five (45) itemized
documents, reflecting the portions of the credentialing file of Dr. Ahmed that were
withheld.
II.

DISCUSSION
Several basic guiding principles inform our resolution of this discovery

dispute. Decisions regarding Rule 37 motions are “committed to the sound
discretion of the district court.” DiGregorio v. First Rediscount Corp., 506 F.2d
781, 788 (3d Cir. 1974). Similarly, issues relating to the scope of discovery
permitted under Rule 26 also rest in the sound discretion of the Court. Wisniewski
Page 3 of 5 

v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus, a court’s decisions
regarding the conduct of discovery, and whether to compel disclosure of certain
information, will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion.
Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983).This farreaching discretion extends to rulings by United States Magistrate Judges on
discovery matters. In this regard:
District courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad
discretion in resolving discovery disputes. See Farmers & Merchs.
Nat'l Bank v. San Clemente Fin. Group Sec., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 572,
585 (D.N.J.1997). When a magistrate judge's decision involves a
discretionary [discovery] matter . . . , “courts in this district have
determined that the clearly erroneous standard implicitly becomes an
abuse of discretion standard.” Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224
F.R.D. 169, 174 (E.D.Pa.2004) (citing Scott Paper Co. v. United
States, 943 F.Supp. 501, 502 (E.D.Pa.1996)). Under that standard, a
magistrate judge's discovery ruling “is entitled to great deference and
is reversible only for abuse of discretion.” Kresefky v. Panasonic
Commc'ns and Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J.1996); see also
Hasbrouck v. BankAmerica Hous. Servs., 190 F.R.D. 42, 44-45
(N.D.N.Y.1999) (holding that discovery rulings are reviewed under
abuse of discretion standard rather than de novo standard); EEOC v.
Mr. Gold, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 100, 102 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (holding that a
magistrate judge's resolution of discovery disputes deserves
substantial deference and should be reversed only if there is an abuse
of discretion).
Halsey v. Pfeiffer, No. 09-1138, 2010 WL 3735702, *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010).
This discretion is guided, however, by certain basic principles. Thus, at the
outset, it is clear that Rule 26's broad definition of that which can be obtained
through discovery reaches any “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
Page 4 of 5 

claim or defense.” Therefore, valid claims of relevance and privilege still cabin and
restrict the court’s discretion in ruling on discovery issues. Furthermore, the scope
of discovery permitted by Rule 26 embraces all “relevant information” a concept
which is defined in the following terms: “Relevant information need not be
admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.”
III.

CONCLUSION
Having conducted a detailed in camera review of these forty five itemized

documents we conclude that these records all fall within one or more of the
claimed privileges and are not required to be produced.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2013

s/ William I. Arbuckle, III
William I. Arbuckle, III
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5