Opinion
Case No. 05-71844.
December 28, 2005
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash which this Court referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). In her motion, Plaintiff sought to quash subpoenas Defendant issued to the Hurley Medical Center and Dr. Jae Cho. Plaintiff argued that the information sought in the subpoenas — her medical records — were confidential and should not be released without her consent. Defendant responded that Plaintiff waived any privilege with respect to her medical records by filing this lawsuit wherein she alleges inter alia violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant further argued that Plaintiff's medical records are discoverable pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as those records are relevant with respect to whether she suffers from a disability as defined by the ADA.
Magistrate Judge Majzoub conducted a hearing on Plaintiff's motion to quash on October 11, 2005. On November 1, 2005, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion. At the conclusion of her order, Magistrate Judge Majzoub instructs the parties that they have ten days from the date of the order to file any written appeal to the district judge. On November 16, 2005, Plaintiff filed a timely appeal. In her appeal, Plaintiff restates the arguments she made in her motion to quash.
Plaintiff claims she only received Magistrate Judge Majzoub's order on November 7, 2005. In any event, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's appeal is timely based on the date the order was issued as that date and intermediate weekends and holidays (Veteran's Day on November 11) are excluded in the computation. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a).
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the standard of review this Court must apply when objections are filed with respect to a magistrate judge's ruling on nondispositive matters. The rule provides in relevant part: "The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Majzoub's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See, e.g., Mullins v. Toyota Motor Mfg., No. 01-5600, 2002 WL 123686 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2002) (unpublished op.) (affirming dismissal of the plaintiff's ADA action as sanction for the plaintiff's failure to execute medical authorization form where court found that the defendant had a right to the plaintiff's medical records where the plaintiff claimed he had a mental or psychological disability and that he was discharged by the defendant in violation of the ADA, thus placing his mental or psychological state at issue); Butler v. Burroughs Wellcome, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 90, 92 (E.D.N.C. 1996) (stating that "[e]lements of a claim under the ADA touch upon the most private and intimate details of a plaintiff's life. ADA plaintiffs, like plaintiffs in an action for medical malpractice, waive all privileges and privacy interests related to their claim by virtue of filing the complaint"); Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 170 F.R.D. 127, 130 (E.D. Penn. 1997) (finding that the plaintiff waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege by placing her mental condition directly at issue in ADA claim).
This unpublished opinion is attached as Exhibit A to this Opinion and Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's November 16, 2005, "Appeal to Order by Magistrate" is DENIED and Plaintiff's motion to quash is DENIED.