Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-02203-WDM-BNB.
February 12, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before me on the following:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Compel [Doc. # 71, filed 12/12/2006] (the "Defendants' Motion to Compel");
(2) Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) [Doc. # 72, filed 12/12/2006] (the "Motion for Protective Order");
(3) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery [Doc. # 77, filed 12/28/2006] (the "Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel");
(4) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery [Doc. # 78, filed 12/28/2006] (the "Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel"); and
(5) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery [Doc. # 81, filed 1/3/2007] (the "Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel").
I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record:
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Compel and the Motion for Protective Order are GRANTED. The plaintiff shall execute and provide to the defendants a HIPAA compliant medical release on or before February 28, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel, Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel, and Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
GRANTED to require the defendants to respond to the discovery requests on or before March 28, 2007; and
DENIED insofar as they seek the imposition of sanctions because the defendants failure to respond to the discovery requests prior to receiving an executed medical release was substantially justified and the circumstances of this discovery dispute make an award of expenses unjust. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4).