Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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
Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 157 Filed 10/27/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shannon Michael Clark, Plaintiff, vs. ValueOptions, Inc., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 03-1344-PHX-EHC (MS) ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's "Motion to Reopen Discovery" (Doc. # 133), "Motion to Appoint Counsel" (Doc. #134), and "Motion for Stay on Summary Judgment Proceedings, Addendum to Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, and Request for Accelerated Ruling" (Doc. # 154). Defendant ValueOptions filed a Response and Objection to Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery (Doc. # 137). 1. Motion to Reopen Discovery Plaintiff argues that because this Court denied summary judgment for and against Plaintiff, and because Plaintiff recently discovered new information regarding Defendant ValueOptions, further discovery is appropriate. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), the Court can allow limited discovery as appropriate to enable a party to oppose a motion for summary judgment. The information Plaintiff seeks to discover is related to two deaths of Value Options patients. Plaintiff specifically requested "full disclosure and copies of

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

all reports, and documents regarding the deaths of Value Options clients Loren Spellers and Peter Hobkirk-Frerichs[.]" Defendant correctly argues that all of this information is privileged and protected by both state and federal privacy laws.1 As a result, because the material Plaintiff requests is not discoverable, it will be unavailable to assist him in his response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Moreover, there has not been a sufficient showing by Plaintiff that the documents and information sought by him are relevant to his claims or are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FED. R. CIV. P. 26 (f). This case has been pending for more than two years. The deadline for seeking discovery was November 18, 2004. On August 22, 2005 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reopen Discovery following the denials of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and his own Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, which was filed after the discovery deadline had passed. Therefore, the instant Motion to Reopen Discovery will be denied for the additional reason that it comes far too late in the proceedings to warrant the relief sought. 2. Motion for Appointment of Counsel This is now Plaintiff's fifth motion for the appointment of counsel in this case. In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that his case presents the "exceptional circumstances" found in Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) and Agyeman v. Corrections Corporation of America, 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). In support of Plaintiff's argument he cites the same reasons as found in his four previous motions for appointment of counsel, all of which were denied. Plaintiff's

A.R.S. §36-509 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") impose strict limits on the dissemination of patients' medical records. Indeed, courts are extremely reluctant to allow any dissemination fo private medical records without providing the opportunity for the affected patient to object. See United States v. Sutherland, 143 F.Supp.2d 609, 612 (W.D. Vir. 2001). -2Document 157 Filed 10/27/2005 Page 2 of 3

1

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

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

case simply does not present the complexity to meet the "exceptional circumstances" test articulated in Agyeman. Additionally, because the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, it will also deny his Motion for Stay on Summary Judgment Proceedings and Request for Accelerated Ruling as moot. In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery (Doc. # 133) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. # 134) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Stay on Summary Judgment Proceedings and Request for Accelerated Ruling (Doc. # 154) are DENIED as moot.

DATED this 27th day of October, 2005.

-3Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 157 Filed 10/27/2005 Page 3 of 3