D A 0 9

- 0 6 7 7

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U

R T O F T H E S T

A T E O F M O N T

A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 1 5 8 N

R A N D A L L M

. Q U

A M

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l a n t

,

v

.

J A M E S R

. H A L V E R S O N

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l e e

.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f G a l l a t i

n

, C a u s e N o

. D V 0 9

- 2 4 9 B

H o n o r a b l e M i k e S a l v a g n i

, P r e s i d i

n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

M a r t i n R

. S t u d e r

, S t u d e r L a w O f f i c e s

, B o z e m a n

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

Allan H. Bari s

, M o o r e

, O ’ C o n n e l l & R e f

l i n g

, P

. C

. , B o z e m a n

, M o n t a n a

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : J u n e 2 9

, 2 0 1 0

D e c i d e d : J u l

y 2 0

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k July 21 20102

J u s t i c e J a m e s C

. N e l s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

.

¶ 1 P u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n I

, P a r a g r a p h 3 ( d ) ( v

)

, M o n t a n a S u p r e m e C o u r t 1 9 9 6 I n t e r n a l

O p e r a t i n g R

u l e s

, a s a m e n d e d i n 2 0 0 6

, t h e f o l l o w i n g m e m o r a n d u m d e c i s i o n s h a l l n o t b e

c i t e d a s p r e c e d e n

t

. I t s h a l l b e f

i l e d a s a p u b l i c d o c

u m e n t w i t h t

h e C l e r k o f t h e S u

p r e m e

C o u r t a n d i t s c a s e t i t l e

, S u p r e m e C o u r t c a u s e n u m b e r

, a n d d i s p o s i t i o n s h a l l b e i n c l u d e d i n

this Court’ s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and

Montana Reports.

¶ 2 Randall M. Quam filed suit against James R. Halverson for violating the Un iform

Health Care Information Act ( i n p a r t i c u l a r

, § 5 0

- 1 6

- 5 3 6 ( 1 )

, M C A )

, R u l e 4 5 ( b ) ( 1 ) o f t h e

M o n t a n a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e

, a n d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t o f p r i v a c y

. H a l v

e r s o n

f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m

i s s u n d e r R

u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

, a

n d Q u a m f

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y

judgment. The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, granted the motion to

dismiss and denied th e motion for summary judgment.

¶ 3 T h e f

a c t u a l b a s i s f

o r Q u a m ’ s c o m

p l a i n t i n v o l v e s a m o t o r v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t w i t h

N a n c y S e b e n a i n J

u l y 2 0 0 5

. Q u a m a l l e g

e s t h a t h i s n e c k w a s i n

j u r e d i n t h i s a c c i d e n t

, a n d

he filed suit against Sebena for damages. Halverson represents Sebena in the accident

suit. In January 2009, Halverson issued a subpoena duces tecum “commanding” Dr. John

Campbell and Bridger Ort h o p e d i c t o p r o d u c e “ a l l o f [ t h e i r ] r e c o r d s r e g a r d i n g

. . . Q u a m

,

i n c l u d i n g

, b u t n o t l i m

i t e d t o m e d i c a l r e c o r

d s

, n o t e s

, c h a r t s

, r a d i o l o g y r e p o r t s

, m e d i c a l

b i l l s

, a n d c o r r e s p o n d e n c e

. ” C a m p b e l l a n d B r i d g e r O r t h o p e d i c p r o d u c e d t h e r e c o r d s i n

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s u b p o e n a

.3

¶ 4 Q u a m c o n t e n d s i n t h e p r e s e n t s u i t t h a t H a l v e r s o n v i o l a t e d § 5 0

- 1 6

- 5 3 6 ( 1 )

, M C A

,

b y f a i l i n g t o g i v e h i m o r h i s c o u n s e l t e n d a y s w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e s u

b p o e n a p r i o r t o i t s

i s s u a n c e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h i s c l a i m

, w i t h o u

t p r e j u d i c e

, b e c a

u s e Q u a m h a d

f a i l e d t o p l e a

d i n h i s o r i g

i n a l c o m p l a i n t o r h i s a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t t h a t H a l v e r s o n s o u g

h t

h i s h e a l t h c a r e i n f

o r m a t i o n p u r s u a n

t t o s u b s e c t i o n s ( 1 ) ( b )

, ( 1 ) ( d )

, ( 1 ) ( e )

, o r ( 1 ) ( j ) o f

§ 5 0

- 1 6

- 5 3 5

, M C A

, w

h i c h a r e t h e p r o v

i s i o n s t h a t t r i g g e r t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t

. See

§ 50

- 16

- 536(1), MCA.

¶ 5 Quam further contends that Halverson’s issuance of the subpoena violated

§ 5 0

- 1 6

- 5 3 6 ( 2 )

, M C A

, b e c a u s e i t l a c k e d t h e r e q u i s i t e c e r t i f i c a t i o n

. H o w e v

e r

, b e c a u s e

Q u a m d i d n o t a

l l e g e t h i s v i o l a t i o n i n h i s o r i g i n a l c o m p laint or his amended complaint,

but rather asserted it in his response to Halverson’s motion to dismiss, the District Court

held t h a t H a l v e r s o n ’ s c o m

p l i a n c e o r n o n c o m

p l i a n c e w i t h § 5 0

- 1 6

- 5 3 6 ( 2 )

, M C A

, w a s

i m m a t e r i a l

.

¶ 6 N e x t

, Q u a m c o n t e n d s t h a t H a l v e r s o n v i o l a t e d R

u l e 4 5 ( b ) ( 1 ) b y f

a i l i n g t o s e r v

e a

c o p y o f t h e s u b p o e

n a o n h i s c o u

n s e l p r i o r t o i t s i s s u a n c e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d

t h i s c l a i m

, w i t h p r e

j u d i c e

, d u e t o a l a c k o f p r e c e d e n t s u p p o r t i n g r e c o g

n i t i o n o f a n

i n d e p e n d e n

t c a u s e o f a c t i o n f

o r a n a l l e g

e d v i o l a t i o n o f t h e M o n t a n a R u l e s o f C i v i l

P r o c e d u r e

, a

n d d u e t o t

h e a d e q u a

t e s a n c t i o n s a n d p r o t e c t i o n s a v a i l a b l e t o Q u a m i n t h e

u n d e r l y i n g a c c i d e n t s u i t u

n d e r M. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 45(c)(1), and 45(c)(3).

¶ 7 F i n a l l y

, Q u a m c o n t e n d s t h a t H a l v e r s o n ’ s i s s u a n c e o f t h e s u b p o e n a v i o l a t e d h i s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o p r i v a c y u n d e r A

r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n 1 0 o f t h e M o n t a n a C o n s t i t

u t i o n

.

B a s e d o n S t

a t e v

. L o n g

, 2 1 6 M o n t

. 6 5

, 7 1

, 7 0 0 P

. 2 d 1 5 3

, 1 5 7 ( 1 9 8 5 )

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t4

r u l e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s d o n o t h a v

e a c a u s e o f a c t i o n a g

a i n s t p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s w

h o h a v e

a l l e g e d l y v i o l a t e d t h e i r r i g

h t t o p r i v

a c y

. A c c o r d i n g

l y

, b e c a u s e H a l v

e r s o n i s a p r i v a t e

c i t i z e n w h o w a s n o t a c t i n g u n d e r c o l o r o f s t a t e l a w a t t h e t i m e h e i s s u e d t h e a l l e g e d l y

u n l a w f u l s u b p o e n a

, t h e c o u r

t d i s m i s s e d t h i s c l a i m w i t h p r e

j u d i c e

.

¶ 8 On appeal, Quam challenges the District Court’ s rulings on various grounds.

However, having reviewed th e court’s D ecision and Order and t h e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s o n

a p p e a l

, w e h a v

e d e t e r m i n e d t o d e c i d e t

h i s c a s e p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n I

, P a r a g r a p h 3 ( d ) o f

o u r 1 9 9 6 I

n t e r n a l O p e r a t i n g R

u l e s

, a s a m e n d e d i n 2 0 0 6

, w h i c h p r o v

i d e s f o r

m e m o r a n d u m o p i n i o n s

. I t i s m a n i f

e s t o n t h e r e c o r d b e f

o r e u s t h a t Q u a m h a s f

a i l e d t o

d e m o n s t r a t e error in the District Court’s decision.

¶ 9 A f f i r m e d

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N

W e C o n c u r :

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

/ S / M I C H A E L E W H E A T

/ S / P A T R I C I A C O T T E R

/ S / B R I A N M O R R I S