UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case Number: 22-cv-81857-MATTHEWMAN

DIANA FEDDERMAN,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al,

 Defendants.

/

Plaintiff’s Motion for Limited Protective

Order to Narrow the Scope of

Defendants’ Subpoena re: Gynecological

Records and Information 

With respect to defendants’ notice serving subpoena to obtain medical records from

plaintiff’s gynecologist, Dr. Steward P. Newman, and the October 25, 2023 e-mail indicating an

intent to depose him, plaintiff moves for entry of a limited protective order narrowing the scope

of the subpoenas for such discovery, as states as follows: 

 1. The limitation sought re: the gynecologist and records: Plaintiff seeks an order:

One, limiting the scope of highly sensitive records to be produced by Dr. Newman, a

gynecologist (whom plaintiff has seen for the past 30 years or so for various gynecological

issues, who did not treated her for the damages sought in this action and is not on either party’s

witness list) solely to the anti-anxiety medication that plaintiff testified she was prescribed back

in the early 2000s (2007 or 2008), as well as the reason for the prescription. Defendants rejected

plaintiff’s offer to limit the scope of the subpoena to those matters, and instead want to serve a

subpoena that they indicate is intended to reach 

A copy of any and all records concerning anxiety, mood disorder, depression, mental

health, insomnia, headaches and or migraines, treatments which have potential side

effects that may include change of mood, depression, anxiety, insomnia and headaches

and or migraines, which includes, but my [sic] not be limited to, office notes, office

records, office statements, test results, medical records, medical bills, consultation reports,

X-ray films, radiological reports, diagnostic test results, MRI, CT and/or CAT scans films,

and their reports, psychiatric and/or psychological reports and records, reports to insurance

aa

pa The Amlong Firm ! 500 Northeast Fourth Street ! Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ! 954.462.1983

Case 9:22-cv-81857-WM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2023 Page 1 of 4
companies, photographs and/or videotapes, disability ratings, reports and records of an

charges and payments, correspondence memoranda, etc., relating to the care and treatment

of:

(Emphasis in the original) As discussed below, that language is contradictory and is

broad enough to cover records outside that scope of the highlighted area, particularly

when considered with the “Definitions” section and proposed HIPAA release, and which

otherwise seek medical information and records to which plaintiff objects; and 

Two, similarly limiting the scope of deposition testimony from Dr. Newman. 

2. Cases re: “highest sensitivity” afforded to gynecological records:

a. EEOC v. Woodmen of World Life Insurance Society, 8:03CV165,

at *5-6 (D. Neb. Feb. 1, 2007) (granting motion for protective order concerning

subpoenas for gynecological records in a discrimination action because "the defendant

has failed to make the threshold showing at this time of any relevance to this case

regarding Rollins's gynecological history," explaining: “However, an ‘emotional distress

claim does not, however, give Defendants an unfettered right to pursue discovery into

[the plaintiff's] entire medical history.’" Manessis v. New York City Dept. of Transp. ,

No. 02 CIV. 359SASDF, 2002 WL 31115032, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) (citing

cases) (noting waiver of privilege ‘does not permit discovery of information involving

unrelated illnesses and treatment’).” 

b. Prado v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 331 F.R.D. 134, 137-38 (N.D.

Cal. 2019) ("As courts have recognized, medical records regarding a patient's sexual and

gynecological history ‘are not only sensitive, but of the highest sensitivity. Courts have

long recognized that allowing any person, other than the patient or doctor, to view these

records is embarrassing and potentially harassing.’ Batchelor v. Merck & Co., Inc., No.

3:05-CV-791 JTM, 2007 WL 4179015, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2007) (citing Mitchell

v. Hutchings, 116 F.R.D. 481, 484 (D. Utah 1987) ).") 

Page 2 of 4

Case 9:22-cv-81857-WM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2023 Page 2 of 4
c. In this case, a limitation is appropriate because plaintiff is a

current employee, and Dr. Newman is not on either party’s witness list. 

3. The overtly broad language of the subpoena, including the “Definitions”

and proposed HIPAA release, which contradict the contention that defendants want only

the records in the highlighted section of the subpoena — Such language include: 

a. The “Definitions” section, which indicates that “Document or

Record” means essentially everything in the doctor’s file; 

b. The “Documents Requested” section, with the “including but not

limited to” language that similarly includes everything in the doctor’s file; 

c. The proposed HIPAA release, which instructs Dr. Newman to

everything, i.e., “furnish full and complete file records, medical records concerning

private health information, policy information, employment information, plan

documents, and any and all other information.....”

Defendants’ subpoena is no less invasive because a portion seemingly limits the

records to certain symptoms — defendants ignore that some of those symptoms (e.g.,

insomnia, trouble focusing, mood changes, depression, anxiety, etc,) may arise for other

conditions, such as menopause, which have absolutely no bearing on this action. See

https://www.womenshealth.gov/menopause/menopause-symptoms-and-relief 

Complying with this request would be tantamount to disclosing plaintiff’s entire

gynecological history including highly private and sensitive information that far exceeds

the requirements of justice.

Certificate of Conferral

I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has conferred with all parties or

non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion, in a good faith effort to

Page 3 of 4

Case 9:22-cv-81857-WM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2023 Page 3 of 4
resolve the issues raised in the motion, including by providing a previous draft of this

motion. Defendants object to the relief sought. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

furnished by CM/ECF this day to the parties of record on the Service List. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jennifer Daley 

WILLIAM R. AMLONG

Florida Bar No. 470228

WRAmlong@TheAmlongFirm.com

KAREN COOLMAN AMLONG

Florida Bar No. 275565

Kamlong@TheAmlongFirm.com

JENNIFER DALEY 

Florida Bar Number 856436

Jdaley@TheAmlongFirm.com

THE AMLONG FIRM

500 Northeast Fourth Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1154

(954) 462-1983

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Diana Fedderman 

\\amlong3\cpshare\CPWin\HISTORY\231031_0001\1898.140

Page 4 of 4

Case 9:22-cv-81857-WM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2023 Page 4 of 4