United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER
H.
Russel Holland United States District Judge
Motion
to Compel
Plaintiffs
move for an order compelling defendant Providence Health
& Services -Washington to respond to their Requests for
Production Nos. 13-18.[1] This motion is opposed.[2] Oral argument has
not been requested and is not deemed necessary.
Plaintiffs,
who are cardiothoracic surgeons, commenced this action after
their staff privileges were terminated at Providence Alaska
Medical Center (PAMC). Plaintiffs allege that their staff
privileges were terminated after PAMC entered into an
exclusive contract with Starr-Wood Cardiac Group of Portland,
P.C. Plaintiffs' remaining claims in this matter are
their breach of contract claim and a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. Plaintiffs
allege that PAMC “breached its own bylaws” by
“rescinding their medical staff privileges without
cause and by excluding them from the hospital facilities
where they may perform cardiac and thoracic
surgery.”[3] And, plaintiffs allege that
“[t]hrough its exclusion of [them] from PAMC, PAMC
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.”[4]
On
April 10, 2019, plaintiffs served their First Requests for
Production on defendant. Defendant objected to Requests for
Production Nos. 13-18 on various grounds, including that they
sought “confidential business information that relates
solely to claims that have been dismissed or that is
otherwise not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.”[5]In response to the instant motion,
defendant only argues that the information being sought in
these requests is irrelevant to plaintiffs' remaining
claims.
“Pursuant
to Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), ‘[a] party seeking discovery
may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
production, or inspection' if ‘a party fails to
respond that inspection will be permitted-or fails to permit
inspection-as requested under Rule 34.'”
Renfrow v. Redwood Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 288
F.R.D. 514, 521 (D. Nev. 2013) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(3)(B)(iv)). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
34(a) permits each party to serve the opposing party with
document requests within the scope of Rule 26(b) that are
‘relevant to any party's claim or defense . .
.' or, for good cause shown, ‘relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action.'”
Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)). “For
discovery purposes, relevance means only that the materials
sought are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Id.
Request
for Production No. 13. In RFP No. 13, plaintiffs request
“all documents in your possession, custody or control
that reference or mention any discussion or offer involving
Dr. Curtis, Dr. Valdes, or both of them, and a request that
Providence provide a salary guarantee for a cardiothoracic
surgeon.”[6] Documents responsive to this request are
relevant to plaintiffs' remaining claims as they may shed
light on whether PAMC terminated plaintiffs' staff
privileges for an impermissible reason. Defendant is
compelled to respond to RFP No. 13.
Request
for Production No. 14. In RFP No. 14, plaintiffs request
“a true, correct and complete copy of the May 1, 2017,
letter from PAMC to Starr-Wood referencing negotiations for a
cardiothoracic surgery agreement.”[7] This letter is
relevant to plaintiffs' remaining claims as it may have
some bearing on whether PAMC was dealing fairly with
plaintiffs during the relevant time. Defendant is compelled
to respond to RFP No. 14.
Request
for Production No. 15. In RFP No. 15, plaintiffs request
“all documents in your possession, custody or control
that reference or touch upon an exclusive contract for
cardiothoracic surgery with the Starr-Wood group, and PAMC in
existence prior to 2005.”[8]PAMC's relationship with
Starr-Wood prior to 2005 is not relevant to plaintiffs'
remaining claims, primarily because it is too remote in time.
Defendant is not compelled to respond to RFP No. 15.
Request
for Production No. 16. In RFP No. 16, plaintiffs request
“all documents in your possession, custody or control
that reference or touch upon the termination or ending of the
1990s exclusive contract for cardiothoracic surgery between
the Starr-Wood group and PAMC.”[9] PAMC's relationship with
Starr-Wood in the 1990s is not relevant to plaintiffs'
remaining claims, primarily because it is too remote in time.
Defendant is not compelled to respond to RFP No. 16.
Request
for Production No. 17. In RFP No. 17, plaintiffs request
“all documents in your possession, custody or control
that reference or touch upon a contract between the
Starr-Wood group and a hospital in Bend,
Oregon.”[10] Starr-Wood's contract with a
different hospital in a different state under different
circumstances is not relevant to plaintiffs' remaining
claims. Defendant is not compelled to respond to RFP No. 17.
Request
for Production No. 18. In RFP No. 18, plaintiffs request
“all documents in your possession, custody or control
that support your denial of paragraph 50 of the Amended
Complaint.”[11] In paragraph 50 of their amended
complaint, plaintiffs allege that:
[t]he decline in the quali[t]y of patient care brought about
by the exclusive contract also will be needless. PAMC could
have solved its inability to provide call coverage by
agreeing to an income guarantee for one surgeon that would
have been a fraction of the cost of the income guarantee per
surgeon contained in the exclusive agreement with
Starr-Wood.[12]
Documents
responsive to this request are relevant to plaintiffs'
remaining claims as they may shed light on whether PAMC
terminated plaintiffs' staff privileges for an
...