Summary
In Petruska, Id., the court rejected Plaintiffs objection to discovery of Afco records on the grounds that they were equally accessible to Defendants through Afco's trustee in bankruptcy stating: "It is `not usually a ground for objection that the information is equally available to the interrogator or is a matter of public record."
Summary of this case from Jackson v. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc.Opinion
Suit was brought seeking to impose liability on defendant company for asbestos-related diseases contracted by plaintiff's decedent as a result of his residency near defendant's asbestos-using plant, and also seeking to impose liability on co-defendant Canadian company for distributing asbestos to defendant. On plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to produce various documents, the District Court, Pollak, J., held that: (1) documents concerning Canadian employees of the codefendant were relevant even though plaintiff was not claiming a work-related impairment, and (2) even if compliance with plaintiff's demand for production of documents might contravene Quebec statute, a United States court nevertheless has the power to direct such compliance by a Canadian corporation properly subject to the court's jurisdiction; furthermore, it was not at all clear in this instance that compliance with plaintiff's demand would contravene the Quebec statute.
Order in accordance with opinion.
See also, D.C., 83 F.R.D. 39.
Edward Rubin, Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin & Maxwell, Lansdale, Pa., for plaintiff.
Francis E. Marshall, Marshall, Dennehey & Warner, Thomas C. DeLorenzo, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.
OPINION
POLLAK, District Judge.
This diversity action was commenced in 1977 to recover damages for asbestos poisoning. The complaint puts forward two novel theories of liability. First, it seeks to impose liability on defendant Johns-Manville Products Corporation (hereinafter " Products" ) for asbestos-related diseases mesothelioma and asbestosis contracted by plaintiff's decedent John R. Petruska as a result of his residency in a town in which Products operated an asbestos-using plant. Second, it seeks to impose liability on defendant Canadian Johns-Manville Company, Ltd., (hereafter " Canadian" ) for distributing to Products asbestos " which (it) knew . . . or should have known (was) deleterious, poisonous and highly harmful to plaintiff-decedent's body, lungs, respiratory system, skin and health."
The case is now before the Court on plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to produce the following documents: (1) records of medical examinations of its employees made by defendant, Canadian, during the period 1920-1960; (2) records of occupational disease and workmen's compensation claims filed by employees of Canadian claiming asbestos-related health problems from 1920-1960; (3) copies of all minutes of the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association in the possession of Canadian; and (4) a copy of any list of mesothelioma cases for employees of Canadian. Plaintiff proposes that inspection take place at the Philadelphia office of defendants' counsel, with the understanding that plaintiff will reimburse defendants for all photocopying expense. Defendants argue that the proposed discovery is tardy, and that in any event production of the requested documents would (1) contravene Quebec law, and (2) as to some of the documents, be a " breach of privilege."
1. Defendants contend that plaintiff's demand is out of time, arguing that the Court's extension of the discovery deadline to February 1, 1979, was merely to facilitate completion of outstanding discovery, not to permit new discovery. The Court's order was not so limited.
2. Defendants argue that the documents concerning Canadian employees are not relevant to this case since John Petruska is not claiming a work-related impairment. But evidence concerning defendants' knowledge of the danger to their employees is probative of their knowledge of the danger, if any, to residents of communities in which they operate plants. In Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 523 F.2d 155, 158 (8th Cir. 1975), the Court of Appeals approved a jury charge which read in part:
It is admitted that Johns-Manville knew as early as 1942 that asbestos would cause asbestosis when inhaled by factory workers. Mr. Karjala, however, is not a factory worker. He is an insulation installer. It is for you to decide whether or not Johns-Manville knew in fact of the danger to Mr. Karjala of contracting asbestosis . . . In reaching your decision you may consider the knowledge which Johns-Manville had relative to factory workers and whether or not this knowledge would put Johns-Manville on notice of the danger to Mr. Karjala as an installation worker.
Therefore, the requested documents appear relevant within the meaning of Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and also within the meaning of Rule 26(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Discovery.
3. Defendants argue that all medical records are privileged. Since this is a diversity action, this Pennsylvania federal court must follow the privilege law which would be applied if this case had been brought in a state court. Federal Rule of Evidence 501. And this means that if the state court would apply the privilege law of another jurisdiction, the federal court must follow suit. Cf. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's adoption, in Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (1964), of a modern approach to choice of law suggests that a Pennsylvania state court would look to the privilege law of Quebec where the doctor-patient relationships between Canadian's employees and Canadian's physicians arose. See Panko v. Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, 423 F.2d 41, 43 (3d Cir. 1970). Defendants, who have the burden of proving a privilege, have not cited any Quebec statute or case law setting forth the protection claimed. The Court's research which can make no claim to being exhaustive, but it is all the law which is available to us suggests that Quebec follows the common law rule that communications entrusted to a medical advisor are not privileged. Regina v. Potvin (1971) 16 C.R.N.S. 233 (Quebec Court of Appeal) (criminal case). See also Regina v. Burgess (1974) 4 W.W.R. 310 (British Columbia). Defendants may wish to redact patient names to insure confidentiality; plaintiff has advised the Court that such limited redaction is acceptable.
Rule 501. General Rule
It appears likely that if a Pennsylvania state court were to apply Pennsylvania's law of privilege, the information requested would not be protected. 28 P.S. s 328 provides:
4. Defendants argue that Quebec Asbestos Mining Association records can be secured directly from the Association. But it is " not usually a ground for objection that the information is equally available to the interrogator or is a matter of public record." 8 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil s 2014 at 111. Here, plaintiff may have difficulty obtaining records from a foreign association, and the records sought are only those in defendants' possession.
5. Defendants' final argument against the proposed discovery is the most sweeping: because the demanded documents " are Canadian records of Canadian concerns," they " are therefore governed by Chapter 278 (of the Business Concerns Records Act of the Province of Quebec) and cannot be released to plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel." Article 2 of the cited Quebec statute provides in pertinent part:
. . . nul ne peut, a la suite ou en vertu d'une reequisition eemanant d'une autoritee legislative, judiciaire ou administrative exteerieure a la province, transporter ou faire transporter, ou envoyer ou faire envoyer, d'un endroit quelconque dans la province a un endroit situee hors de celle-ci, aucun document ou reesumee ou sommaire d'un document relatif a une entreprise.
The full text of the statute in French and English is set forth in the Appendix to this Opinion.
If, as defendants seem to fear, compliance with plaintiff's demand for the production of documents might contravene the quoted Quebec statute, it would appear nonetheless that a court in this country would have power to direct such compliance by a Canadian corporation properly subject to the court's jurisdiction. See American Industrial Contracting, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 1971 Federal Trade Cases p. 73,599 (W.D.Pa.1971). Nevertheless, it would hardly seem prudent for a court to exercise its power in a fashion disruptive of the public policy of another country (or political subdivision thereof) unless it was apparent that no less intrusive measure would serve the compelling litigation needs of the forum. But in this instance it is not at all clear that compliance with plaintiff's demand would contravene the Quebec statute: First : there is no indication that the statute would be offended if defendants were to make copies of the requested documents and submit those, with a sufficient showing of authenticity, to plaintiff's counsel in Philadelphia. Second : Defendants' professed anxiety about the jeopardy which compliance would entail " A violation of the statute is punishable by one year's imprisonment" seems, at least on the present record, somewhat far-fetched. Article 4 of the statute empowers the " procureur geeneeral," when advised of the imminent likelihood that corporate records will be shipped out of the province in violation of the statute, to ask a local judge to enjoin any such shipment of records. And Article 5 provides, in relevant part:
Toute personne qui, apres avoir recu un avis d'une requ ete adresseee a un juge de district en vertu de l'article 4, contrevient aux dispositions de l'article 2, est coupable de meepris de cour et passible d'un an d'emprisonnement.
However, there is no suggestion that the " procureur geeneeral" has filed " une requete adresseee a un judge de district en vertu de l'article 4," with respect to the documents sought by plaintiff in this case.
All this said, it remains the general rule that business records should be examined at the place where they are kept, at least where the documents requested are large in number and their production poses some inconvenience. 8 Wright & Miller s 2214 at 651-52. Accordingly, while defendants are obligated to make the requested documents available, they may prefer to do this in Quebec rather than in Philadelphia. If Quebec is chosen, it would seem equitable for defendants to shoulder one-half of plaintiff's counsel's travel and associated expenses. See Powell v. International Foodservice Systems, Inc., 52 F.R.D. 205 (D.P.R.1971); Terry v. Modern Woodmen of America, 57 F.R.D. 141 (W.D.Mo.1972).
As noted above, the existing order set February 1, 1979, as the deadline for completion of discovery. In view of the time consumed in resolving this issue, the closing date for discovery which is now outstanding is moved forward to June 15, 1979. APPENDIX
(Image Omitted)
CHAPITRE 278
CHAPTER 278
Loi des dossiers d'entreprises
Business Concerns Records Act
Interpré tation:
1. Dans la pré sente loi, les mots
1. In this act, the following words
Interpretation
suivants dé signent:
mean:
" document
a) " document" : un compte, un bilan
(a) " document" : any account, balance
" document" ;
financier, uné tat des recettes et des dépenses
sheet, statement of receipts and expenditure,
un é tat des profits et pertes, un é tat
profit and loss statement, statement
de l'actif et du passif, un inventaire, un
of assets and liabilities, inventory, report
rapport et tout autre é crit on pié cefaisant
and any other writing or material forming
partie des dossiers ou archives d'une entreprise
part of the records or archives of a business
d'affaires;
concern;
" entreprise‘
b)" entreprise" : toute entreprised'afffaires
(b) " concern" : any business concern in
" concern;
dans la province;
the Province;
" requisitio"
c)" ré quisition" : une demande, une
(c) " requirement" : any demand, direction," requirement" .
instruction, un ordre, un subpoena ou
order, subpoena or summons. 6-7
une sommation. 6-7 Eliz. II, c. 42, a. 1.
Eliz. II, c. 42, s. 1.
Transport,
2. Sous ré serve de l'article 3, nul ne
2. Subject to section 3, no person shall,
Removal,
etc.,
peut, à la suite ou en vertu d'une réquisition
pursuant to or under any requirement
etc., of
de document
é manant d'une autorité législative,
issued by any legislative, judicial or administrative
documents
prehibé .
judiciare ou administrative exé rieure àla
authority outside the Province
prohibited.
province, transporter ou faire transporter,
remove or cause to be removed, or
ou envoyer ou faire envoyer, d'un endroit
send or cause to be sent, from any place
quelconque dans la province à un endroit
in the Province to a place outside the
situé hors de celie-ci, ancun document ou
Province, any document or ré sumé or
ré sumé ou sommaire d'un documentrelatif
digest of any document relating to any
à une entreprise. 6-7 Eliz. II, c. 42, a. 2.
concern. 6-7 Eliz. II, c. 42, s. 2.
Exception
3. La prohibition stipulé e àl'article 2
3. The prohibition enacted in section 2
Exception.
ne s'applique pas dans le cas de transport
shall not apply in the case of the removal
ou d'envoi d'un document hors de la
or sending of a document out of the
province
Province
a) par une agence, une succursale,
(a) by an agency, branch, company or
une compagnie ou une maison d'affaires
firm carrying on business in the Province,
exercant son activité dans la province, à
to a principal, head office, affiliated company
un principal, un sié ge social, une compagnnie
or firm, agency or branch situated
ou une maison d'affaires affilié e,
outside the Province, in the ordinary
une agence ou une succursale situeé e
course of their business;
hors de la province, dans le cours ordinaire
de leurs affaires;
b) par ou de la part d'une compagnie
(b) by or on behalf of a company or
ou personne, telles que dé fines par la
person, as defined by the Securities Act,
Loi des valeurs mobilié res (chap. 274),
(Chap. 274) carrying on business in the
faisant affaires dans la province, dans un
Province, to a territory subject to another
territoire soumis à une autre jurisdiction
political jurisdiction in which the sale of
politique dans lequel la vente des valeurs
the securities of such company or person
mobilié res de cette compagnie ou de cette
has been authorized;
personne a é té autorisé e;
c) par ou de la part d'une telle compapnie
(c) by or on behalf of any such company
ou d'une telle personne faisant affaires
or person carrying on business in the
dans la province comme courtier, é metteur
Province as a broker, security issuer or
de valeurs mobilié res ou vendeur as sens
salesman within the meaning of the
de la Loi des valeurs mobilié res, dans
Security Act, to a territory subject to
un territoire soumis à une autre jurisdiction
another political jurisdiction in which any
politique dans lequel une telle
such company or person has been registered
compagnie ou personne a é téenregistré e
or is otherwise authorized to carry on
ou autrement autorisé e à exercer
business as broker, security issuer or salesman,
le commerce de courtier, é metteur de
as the case may be;
valeurs mobilié res ou vendeur, selon le cas;
d)lorsqu'un tel transport ou envoi est
(d) whenever such removal or sending
autorisé par une loi de la province ou du
is authorized by any law of the Province
parlement du Canada, suivant leur juridiction
or of the Parliament of Canada, in accordance
respective. 6-7 Eliz. II, c. 42,
with their respective jurisdictions.
a.3.
6-7 Eliz. II, c. 42, s. 3.
Engage-
4. Lorsqu'il y a lieu de croire qu'une
4. Whenever there is reason to believe
Security
ment ou
ré quisition a é té ou seraprobablement
that a requirement has been or is likely
required
caution-
faite pour le transport ou l'envoi hors de la
to be made for the removal or sending
nement
province d'un document ralatif à une
out of the Province of a document relat-
requis.
entreprise, le procureur gé né ral peut
ing to a concern, the Attorney-General
s'adressor à un juge de district, dans le
may apply to a district judge, in the judi-
district juriciare ou est situé el'entreprise
cial district where the concern in question
en question, pour obtenir une ordonnance
is located, for an order requiring any
enjoignant à toute personne, désigné e ou
person, whether or not designated in the
non dans la ré quisition, de fournir un
requirement, to furnish an undertaking or
engagement ou un cautionnement pour
security to ensure that such person will
garantir qu'elle ne transportera ni n'ever-
not remove or send out of the Province the
ra hors de la province le document men-
document mentioned in the said require-
tionné dans ladite ré quisition.
ment.
Requete
La demande au juge de district se fait
The application to the district judge
Summary
som-
par requete sommaire. Au cas d'urgence,
shall be made by summary petition. In
Petition
maire
elle peut etre produite et pré senté au
case of urgency, it may be filed and pre-
etc.
etc.
juge sans signification pré alable. Le juge
sented to the judge without prior service.
peut toutefois en ordonner la signification
The judge may however order the service
dans tel d$21elai, de telle maniere et à toute
thereof within such delay, in such manner
condition qu'il juge à propos de déter-
and on such conditions as he may consider
miner.
expedient
Pré roga-
Toute personne inté ressé e dans une
Every person having an interest in a
Rights.
tives.
entreprise peut exercer les pr$21erogatives
concern may exercise the rights contem-
pré vues au pré sent article. 6-7 Eliz.II,
plated in this section. 6-7 Eliz. II, c. 42,
c. 42, a. 4.
s.4.
Peine
5. Toute personne qui, après avoir
5. Every person who, having received
Penalty
pour
recu un avis d'une requete adress$21ee à un
notice of a petition to a district judge
for infringement.
offence.
juge de district en vertu de l'article 4,
under section 4, infringes the provisions
contrevient aux dispositions de l'article 2,
of section 2, shall be guilty of contempt
est coupable de mé pris de cour et passible
of court and liable to one year's imprison-
d'un an d'emprisonnement.
ment.
Idem.
Toute personne qui a fourni, ou qui a
Every person who has furnished, or has
Idem.
recu du juge l'ordre de fournir, un engage-
received from the judge an order to furnish,
ment ou un cautionnement et qui contre-
an undertaking or security and who in-
vient aux dispositions de l'article 2 est
fringes the provisions of section 2 shall be
coupable de mé pris de cour et passible
guilty of contempt of court and liable to
d'un an d'emprisonnement, sans préjudice
one year's imprisonment, without preju-
de toute peine ou obligation stipulé e
dice to any penalty or obligation provided
dans l'engagement ou le cautionnement
by the undertaking or security furnished
fourni ou ordonné par le juge. 6-7 Eliz.
or ordered by the judge. 6-7 Eliz. II, c.
II, c. 42, a.5.
42, s. 5.
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law.
No person authorized to practice physics or surgery shall be allowed, in any civil case, to disclose any information which he acquired in attending the patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, which shall tend to blacken the character of the patient, without consent of said patient, except in civil cases, brought by such patient, for damages on account of personal injuries.