Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_22-cv-01573/USCOURTS-alnd-2_22-cv-01573-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALICIA CADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 2:22-cv-01573-RDP

ORDER

On December 19, 2024, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation was entered. 

(Doc. # 67). In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that: 

(1) the following records are irrelevant in the context of discovery to the claims and 

defenses asserted by the parties:

(a) The obstetrical and gynecological records and reports dated March 15, 2017, 

from Women’s Health Specialists of Birmingham and Grandview Medical 

Center;

(b) The emergency department records and reports dated August 16, 2018, from 

Grandview Medical Center; and,

(c) The emergency department records and reports dated October 11, 2019, 

from Grandview Medical Center.

(2) the remaining records are relevant in the context of discovery to the claims and 

defenses asserted by the parties.

(3) therefore, with the exception of the specific records identified as irrelevant, the 

remaining medical records should be produced to both Plaintiff and Defendant.

FILED

 2024 Dec-20 AM 11:39

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:22-cv-01573-RDP-NAD Document 68 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 3
2

(Doc. # 67). 

A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

The court must consider any timely objections and review the magistrate judge’s ruling under the 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. Jordan v. Comm’r, Miss. Dep’t. of Corr., 947 F.3d 

1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). “Parties filing objections to a 

magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. 

Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” United 

States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 

1548 (11th Cir. 1988)). 

Plaintiff’s deposition is scheduled for January 8, 2025, and as stated previously will occur 

in the Judicial Conference Room of the undersigned located in the Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse, 

1729 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203. (Doc. # 62). Given the time-sensitive nature of 

the need for discovery of relevant records prior to a deposition, the court CONDITIONALLY

ADOPTS the Report and CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge as to the irrelevance and relevance of Plaintiff’s records submitted for in camera review. As 

specified in its Order on December 19, 2024, the parties SHALL meet and confer (either in person 

or by electronic communication) and SHALL file any objections to the Report and 

Recommendation within fourteen (14) days thereafter.

To facilitate the process of discovery prior to Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendant is 

ORDERED to, within a reasonable time frame, designate a vendor who will take custody of the 

relevant documents, produce two photocopies of those documents, and securely send copies of 

those documents to Defendant and to the court, addressed to the undersigned. All originals of the 

Case 2:22-cv-01573-RDP-NAD Document 68 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 3
3

documents SHALL be sent by the vendor to Plaintiff at her address of record, unless she provides 

some other instructions about their return.

The court sincerely thanks Judge Danella and his staff for their conscientious work on this 

matter.

DONE and ORDERED this December 20, 2024.

_________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01573-RDP-NAD Document 68 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 3