Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-125.
September 23, 2004
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2004, upon consideration of defendant's motion for reconsideration (docket entry # 19) and plaintiff's response thereto, and the Court finding that:
(a) In our Orders of September 13, 2004 and September 20, 2004, we held that defendant was not entitled to wholesale discovery of plaintiff's medical records because she had placed only her mental health, and not her general physical condition, at issue in this case;
(b) Defendant now requests that we reconsider these rulings, but we will grant a motion for reconsideration only if "the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [rendered its decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice," Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999);
(c) Here, defendant suggests that plaintiff has actually placed her general physical condition at issue because she claims to have experienced physical manifestations, such as stomach problems and headaches, of her alleged emotional injuries;
(d) Defendant claims that it must review plaintiff's entire medical history to ascertain whether the alleged physical manifestations could have been caused by some condition other than the alleged emotional injury;
(e) Although it developed this argument more fully in the motion for reconsideration, defendant did raise this issue in the original motion to compel;
(f) Because plaintiff's medical records might suggest that the alleged physical manifestations were caused by something other the alleged emotional injury and because plaintiff put the existence of the physical manifestations at issue, defendant's discovery requests were reasonably calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence;
(g) Thus, the Court clearly erred in its earlier discovery orders, and we must reconsider them;
(h) Although defendant is entitled to broader discovery, we continue to believe that only those records prepared on or after October 1, 1998 are sufficiently relevant to require their production; and
(i) Because we shall now require plaintiff to respond to RPD#21, which requests that plaintiff personally produce her medical records, there is no reason to burden third parties with defendant's subpoenas;
It is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;
2. Our Order of September 20, 2004 is VACATED;
3. The subpoenas served on Dr. Natasha Flemens, Adams County Women's Health, and Valley Forge OB/GYN Associates-Clinical Care Associates are QUASHED;
4. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of our Order of August 30, 2004 are VACATED;
5. By September 30, 2004, plaintiff shall PROVIDE defendant with the documents identified in Request for Production of Documents No. 21 that were prepared on or after October 1, 1998;
6. By October 8, 2004, the parties shall COMPLETE all discovery; and
7. By October 15, 2004, the parties shall REPORT BY FAX (215-580-2156) whether settlement discussions with the Honorable Jacob P. Hart would be productive.