Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Niles v. Rodman

United States District Court, D. Colorado

January 13, 2016

LAURENCE NILES, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM RODMAN, Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING: [1] DEFENDANT WILLIAM RODMAN, M.D.’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT’S ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY (DOCKET NO. 58); [2] DEFENDANT WILLIAM RODMAN, M.D.’S MOTION TO COMPEL UN-REDACTED MEDICAL BILLS AND MEDICAL RECORDS (DOCKET NO. 59); [3] PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ DESIGNATION OF NON-PARTY TORTFEASOR (DOCKET NO. 66); [4] PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE “DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET” OF WILLIAM RODMAN, M.D. (DOCKET NO. 68); [5] PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO FOLLOW LOCAL RULE 30.3 AND CEASE MAKING EXCESSIVE SPEAKING OBJECTIONS AND COACHING WITNESSES DURING ORAL DEPOSITIONS (DOCKET NO. 70); AND [6] DEFENDANT WILLIAM RODMAN, M.D.’S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO COMPEL UNREDACTED BILLS (DOCKET NO. 92)

MICHAEL J. WATANABE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter was before the court on January 5, 2016, for hearing on: [1]

Defendant William Rodman, M.D.’s Motion for Sanctions due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with this Court’s Order Regarding Discovery (docket no. 58); [2] Defendant William Rodman, M.D.’s Motion to Compel Un-Redacted Medical Bills and Medical Records (docket no. 59); [3] Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Designation of Non-Party Tortfeasor (docket no. 66); [4] Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the “Deposition Correction Sheet” of William Rodman, M.D. (docket no. 68); [5] Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order Directing Defendants’ Counsel to Follow Local Rule 30.3 and Cease Making Excessive Speaking Objections and Coaching Witnesses During Oral Depositions (docket no. 70); and [6] Defendant William Rodman, M.D.’s Supplement to Motion to Compel Unredacted Bills (docket no. 92). The court has reviewed the subject motions (docket nos. 58, 59, 66, 68, 70, & 92), the responses (docket nos. 63, 64, 78, 79, 83, & 84), the replies (docket nos. 76, 72, 80, 82, & 86), and Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Status Report Regarding Records and Films of Certain California Based Providers of Plaintiff Laurence Niles (docket no. 91). In addition, the court has considered oral argument on the subject motions and has taken judicial notice of the court’s file. The court has also considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The court finds:

1. That I have diversity jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties to this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 since Plaintiff is a citizen of California and the Defendant is a citizen of Colorado;

2. That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;

3. That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to be heard;

4. That in the subject motion (docket no. 58), Defendant Rodman seeks sanctions against Plaintiff for not responding fully and completely to Defendant Rodman’s Request for Production No. 6 and Interrogatory No. 5. In support of this motion, Defendant Rodman argues that Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Order dated September 10, 2015 (docket no. 54). This Order (docket no. 54) directed Plaintiff to respond fully to Defendant Rodman’s Request for Production No. 6 and Interrogatory No. 5 by October 2, 2015. Accordingly, Defendant Rodman requests that attorney fees and costs be awarded to him pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 and that this court Order Plaintiff to produce un-redacted medical records and medical bills, or sign authorizations for Defendant Rodman to obtain a complete medical history from Plaintiff, dating back to February 17, 2005;

5. That Plaintiff has objected to Defendant Rodman’s Request for Production No. 6 and Interrogatory 5. Plaintiff argues that he has complied with this Court’s Order (docket no. 54) by providing supplemental responses to both Defendant Rodman’s Request for Production No. 6 and Interrogatory 5, and Plaintiff has further now served subpoenas upon Plaintiff’s California health care providers as outlined in Plaintiff’s Response (docket no. 63). Moreover, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Rodman has not been specific as to what Defendant Rodman claims are missing from Plaintiff’s medical records;

6. That during this hearing, Defendant Rodman’s counsel did articulate on the record with more specificity what portions of Plaintiff’s medical records were deficient. Further, Defendant Rodman filed on January 4, 2016, a motion captioned “William Rodman, M.D.’s Supplement to Motion to Compel Unredacted Bills (docket no. 92) which included an affidavit from Defendant Rodman’s retained rebuttal expert Robert S. Schwartz, M.D., who is a physician retained to give an expert opinion on behalf of Defendant Rodman on Plaintiff’s estimated life expectancy to rebut Plaintiff’s experts Helen Woodard and James McNulty, Ph.D. In a nutshell, Dr. Schwartz stated, in his affidavit, that he cannot adequately evaluate Plaintiff’s medical status and history to complete his analysis of estimated life expectancy as a result of the massive redactions in Plaintiff’s medical records that were produced to Defendant Rodman by Plaintiff. In essence, these massive redactions have hampered the ability for Dr. Schwartz to do his analysis and provide an expert opinion on the life expectancy of Plaintiff. In response to Dr. Schwartz’s affidavit, Plaintiff argues that he offered to give Defendant Rodman written medical releases for his medical records and to allow Defendant Rodman himself to try and obtain such medical records directly from the California medical providers as outlined above with the understanding that if Defendant Rodman was able to secure such medical records, that Plaintiff would first be allowed to review such medical records in order to determine if any portion of such medical records should be redacted relying upon the Alcon case cited below;

7. That in order for this Court to determine whether or not any portions of the already received redacted medical records of Plaintiff by Defendant Rodman and any future redacted supplemental medical records of Plaintiff should be turned over to Defendant Rodman in discovery, this Court or a Special Master will need to conduct an in camera review of both the unredacted and redacted medical records for Plaintiff, noting there is a complete disagreement between the parties as to whether such portions of Plaintiff’s medical records are discoverable;

That Plaintiff has impliedly waived his physician- patient privilege only with respect to that portion of his medical history which pertains to “the cause and extent of the injuries and damages sustained as a result of the Defendant’s claimed negligence.” Weil v. Dillon Cos., Inc., 109 P.3rd 127, 131 (Colo. 2005);

That the purposes of pretrial discovery include the elimination of surprise at trial, the discovery of relevant evidence, the simplification of the issues, and the promotion of expeditious settlement of cases. Hawkins v. District Court, 638 P.2d 1372, 1375 (Colo. 1982). In order to accomplish these purposes, the discovery rules are construed liberally. Bond v. District Court, 682 P.2d 33, 40 (Colo. 1984);

That under the so-called Alcon test [Alcon v. Spicer, 113 P.3d 735 (Colo. 2005)], and further stated in Stone v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 185 P.3d 150, 155 (Colo. 2008), the Colorado Supreme Court stated that courts are required to balance the concepts of “compelling need and least intrusive alternative” and mandates that this inquiry be considered in light of the particular circumstances of each case. In applying the Alcon test, the Stone court noted that “[t]he burden lies with the party seeking discovery to show relevancy and to demonstrate a compelling need for the specific information contained within the requested documents. In ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.