Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02635/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02635-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jay A. Morrow, D.D.S.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company,

et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2635-PHX-SMM

ORDER

On May 21, 2008, the Court held a telephonic discovery dispute in the abovecaptioned matter. The parties presented several issues for the Court’s determination, each

pertaining to documents sought via subpoena or other discovery mechanisms. Several of the

issues pertained to documents sought regarding Plaintiff’s witness, Dr. Karen Canulla.

Pursuant to the decisions reached in that hearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Regarding the documents from Dr. Canulla’s child custody proceedings, the

information is not the appropriate subject of discovery in light of the issues in this case, and

the dispute is not yet ripe as Defendants have not issued a subpoena with respect to these

documents. It would appear that Defendants are not entitled to the child custody proceeding

documents.

(2) Regarding documents from Dr. Canulla’s disability claim, the information is

discoverable, with certain limitations. Defendants are entitled to obtain an affidavit from Dr.

Case 2:06-cv-02635-SMM Document 248 Filed 05/22/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Canulla’s treating physician setting forth the date on which Dr. Canulla became disabled and

the date on which Dr. Canulla could return to work. Defendants are also entitled to an

affidavit from Dr. Canulla’s disability insurer setting forth the date on which Dr. Canulla

filed her claim, the date on which the claim was settled or “bought out,” and the date, if any,

on which the disability insurer determined that Dr. Canulla was no longer disabled or was

returned to work. 

(3) Regarding documents from Dr. Canulla’s malpractice insurance, Defendants are

entitled to an affidavit from Dr. Canulla’s malpractice insurer setting forth the dates of Dr.

Canulla’s coverage.

(4) Regarding documents from Plaintiff’s prior disability claim with Unum or New

York Life, Defendants are entitled to those documents, subject to the confidentiality

agreement reached in that claim.

(5) Regarding documents from Defendant DRMS’s litigation in Alaska, those

documents are unrelated to the issues in this case and are therefore not discoverable.

Therefore Plaintiff is not entitled to the Alaska litigation documents.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02635-SMM Document 248 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 2