Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02168/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02168-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Schwartz, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2168-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants’ “Motion to Compel Signing of Medical Records

and Employment Records Release Authorizations” (doc. 36), plaintiffs’ response (doc. 37)

and defendants’ reply (doc. 40). For the reasons stated below, we deny defendants’ motion.

Defendants argue that their motion to compel the signing of medical and employment

records releases in effect requests production of the records. See Motion to Compel at 2.

Several courts have ordered parties to provide medical records releases pursuant to Rule

34(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. in order to compel the production of the records. However, “[t]here

is no provision in Rule 34 for requesting documents from a party that are possessed by

another person.” Ayers v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47963, at *18 (D. W. Va.

July 2, 2007). Instead, defendants may serve non-parties with subpoenas to compel the

production of records non-parties hold. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; Johnson v. Kraft Foods N.

Am., Inc., 236 F.R.D. 535, 540 (D. Kan. 2006). If non-parties fail to produce the requested

Case 2:06-cv-02168-FJM Document 42 Filed 07/06/07 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 -

documents, defendants may then seek an order compelling production. Defendants’ present

motion attempts to bypass the discovery procedure established by the federal rules, and it is

therefore denied. 

We reject defendants’ contention that compelling plaintiffs to sign releases is the only

way defendants may access the records at issue. Defendants allege that the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prohibits medical providers from releasing their

patients’ records without the patients’ authorization. See Reply at 2. Yet HIPAA expressly

permits disclosure in response to a subpoena issued in the context of judicial proceedings so

long as the party seeking the information adheres to specific procedural safeguards. See 45

CFR § 164.512 (listing the “[u]ses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity

to agree or object is not required”). Defendants also argue that although they may “attempt

to subpoena the documents from the employers under Rule 45,” it is nevertheless “highly

unlikely that the employers would provide the documents because of privacy laws and other

concerns.” Reply at 2. However, defendants cite no authority in support of this contention.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants’ “Motion to Compel

Signing of Medical Records and Employment Records Release Authorizations” (doc. 36).

DATED this 6th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02168-FJM Document 42 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2