Opinion
23-10355
07-17-2023
RASHEED GASKIN, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY GELINAS, Defendant.
George Caram Steeh United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF HIPAA ORDER (ECF NO. 7)
Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant moved for entry of its proposed Qualified Protective Order and Authorization pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). (ECF No. 7). This motion was referred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 8). In the motion, Defendant states that it sought to seek concurrence from Plaintiff for entry of the proposed order beginning in April 2023, but Plaintiff has not responded. Plaintiff did not file a brief in opposition to the motion. The Court has reviewed the proposed order and finds it reasonable. HIPAA's regulations permit medical providers to produce medical information for use in judicial and administrative proceedings in response to an order of the Court. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1). Further, under subsection (e)(1)(v), such an order is termed a “qualified protective order” when it includes a prohibition that the obtaining party not use the information for any purpose other than the litigation and that the party return or destroy this information at the end of the case. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v)(A)-(B). The proposed protective order meets these requirements. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is directed to submit its proposed order through the utilities function of CM/ECF, updated to reflect that the undersigned is the judge who will sign the order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Local Rule 72.2.