Wolff v. Bee Healthy Medical Weight Loss et al

Filing 80

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 78 MOTION to Deny Release of Medical Records and MOTION for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 1/16/2019. (lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kristy Michelle Wolff, FNP-C,
ADN, BSN, MSN, APRN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bee Healthy Medical Weight Loss
Clinic Lexington, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:17-3339-CMC-SVH

ORDER

Kristy Michelle Wolff (“Plaintiff”) filed this case alleging violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101,
et seq. (“ADA”) against Bee Healthy Medical Weight Loss Clinic Lexington,
LLC (“Defendant).1 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to
deny the release of her medical records. [ECF No. 78]. Defendant having filed
a response [ECF No. 79], the motion is ripe for disposition.
In her motion, Plaintiff first requests an extension to respond to
Defendant’s first set of interrogatories and requests for production.
Defendant responded that it consents to a 30-day extension. Plaintiff’s
responses are now due by February 4, 2019. In the future, Plaintiff may
request such discovery extensions directly from Defendant and resort to

All other claims brought by Plaintiff have been dismissed pursuant to the
court’s October 1, 2018 order.
1

involving the court only if the parties cannot reach an agreement.
Plaintiff also requests a limitation on Defendant’s discovery of her
medical records, although she does not specify the records to which she
objects to disclosing. Defendant notes that Plaintiff has placed several of her
medical conditions into issue, as she has listed the following ailments as the
basis for her ADA claim or the damages she seeks: Attention Deficit Disorder,
Autoimmune Disease, Undifferentiated Connective Tissue Disease, Crohn’s
Disease, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease. [ECF
No. 78 at 4–5]. In addition, Plaintiff’s submissions to the court have
referenced

Defendant’s

actions

causing

her

delay

in

infertility

treatments/IVF [ECF No. 1-2 at 2]; Plaintiff “becoming more ill, suffer[ing]
continued delay in needed medical surgeries and procedures including
infertility services” [ECF No. 49 at 7]; and that Plaintiff “suffered and
incurred more medical costs, and became physically ill while undergoing
infertility evaluation” [ECF No. 51 at 2]. Plaintiff also asserts pain and
suffering generally. [ECF No. 51 at 1].
Defendant is entitled to discovery of nonprivileged material that is
relevant to a claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Because Plaintiff has
placed her medical conditions at issue, Defendant is entitled to discovery
related to her medical issues. Plaintiff’s request for an unspecified limitation
is denied. The undersigned notes that the production of documents in

2

discovery does not necessarily indicate that such documents are admissible in
evidence at a potential trial. To the extent Plaintiff believes such documents
are inadmissible pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, such arguments
are appropriate at a later stage in the litigation.
Finally, Plaintiff requests accommodations related to her deposition
such as having her son present and having to reschedule in the middle of a
deposition. In response, Defendant noted that it will work with Plaintiff to set
a mutually-agreeable date and will offer reasonable accommodations as to
hydration, frequent bathroom breaks, and the need for Plaintiff to sit or
stand. However, Plaintiff has not shown good cause to deviate from the
general rule of permitting a seven-hour deposition in one day pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Pro se parties are expected to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, just as represented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 16, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3