Kansas Medical Mutual Insurance v. Svaty
244 P.3d 642
| Kan. | 2010Background
- KaMMCO sought relief from a district court discovery order in a consolidated mandamus and collateral order case arising from a medical malpractice action (Allen v. Slater).
- Allen sought broad discovery from KaMMCO, including KaMMCO personnel, documents, and materials related to defense, claims, and risk management.
- Dr. Macy (Allen's designated expert) is insured by KaMMCO; Allen argued KaMMCO’s financial interests could bias the defense and the expert.
- KaMMCO moved for protective relief, raising relevance, burden, confidentiality, privilege, and insurer-related objections and noting Slater is not insured by KaMMCO.
- The district court issued a discovery order without an in-camera privilege review and denied KaMMCO’s request for a privilege log and protective measures; no final disposition on privilege was made.
- The Supreme Court of Kansas dismissed the collateral-order appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but granted mandamus relief in part, remanding to enforce Berst v. Chipman procedures regarding privilege protections and protective orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to appeal discovery order | KaMMCO argues collateral order doctrine allows immediate review. | Allen contends collateral order review is appropriate instead of mandamus. | Collateral order appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Availability of mandamus to protect nonparties' rights | KaMMCO contends mandamus is available to protect privileges when relief is not appealable. | Allen argues mandamus is improper due to district court discretion and absence of in-camera review. | Mandamus is available and appropriate to require Berst-based procedures; remedy granted in part and remanded. |
| District court duties under Berst v. Chipman | KaMMCO asserts Berst requires in-camera review, privilege logs, and protective measures. | Allen argues Cypress Logs suffice; district court did not apply Berst comprehensively. | Remand to require Berst-compliant in-camera review, explicit relevancy findings, and protective measures; no blanket quash of discovery. |
| Scope and relevance of third-party discovery before protective rulings | Allen seeks broad KaMMCO records to show bias; argues information reasonably leads to admissible evidence. | KaMMCO argues many records are irrelevant, burdensome, confidential, or privileged. | Remand with guidance to articulate specific relevancy and engage proper protective/log/logical tailoring; retain ability to limit discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berst v. Chipman, 232 Kan. 180 (1982) (mandamus scope to protect rights/privileges; in-camera review when privilege asserted)
- Jones v. Bordman, 243 Kan. 444 (1988) (limits on discovery to nonparties; voir dire and records scope)
- Cypress Med. v. Overland Park, 268 Kan. 407 (2000) (privilege logs as an alternative to in-camera review)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (collateral-order doctrine limited in discovery/attorney-client privilege; post-judgment review sufficiency)
- Powell v. Kansas Yellow Cab Co., 156 Kan. 150 (1942) (policy against interjecting insurance in trials; voir dire implications)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hornback, 217 Kan. 17 (1975) (limited discussion of insurance to show bias in trial context)