Butler v. Rigb

1998 U.S Dist. LEXIS 4618 (E.D. La. 1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

There was an auto accident. Butler (P) and other plaintiffs got medical treatment from American Medical Group (AMG) and Midtown Health Center (MHC). These groups were doctors who provided medical treatment to all of the plaintiffs. D filed a notice of deposition and requested certain documents regarding the nature of the relationship between the doctors and the attorneys representing Ps. Rigby (D) wanted documents that listed the total number of patients treated by the doctors since 1992 that were involved in the present lawsuit and a list of patients referred to the doctors by specific personal injury lawyers. AMG and MHC moved for a protective order prohibiting D from discovering that information based on the grounds that the relationship between the doctors and the lawyers were not relevant to the suit, that some of the information was protected by the doctor-patient privilege and that the request was overly burdensome (see page 39 Yeazell 5th for the list of things wanted). D argued that the information was relevant because it would show that the doctors had received money from lawyers who had represented P. The magistrate ruled that most of the information was discoverable. AMG and MHC objected and asked for a ruling from the district court. Rule 26(c) protects nonparties to a lawsuit from discovery and allows those nonparties to move for a protective order. Rule 26(b)(1) sets the scope of discovery as any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Rule 26(b)(2) protects parties against unduly burdensome discovery.