McKenzie v. Pierce
2012 Ark. 190
| Ark. | 2012Background
- McKenzie, nonparty to a custody dispute, challenges subpoenas to medical providers for his records.
- Circuit Court ordered sealed submission of the records and denied McKenzie's motion to quash and for Rule 11 sanctions.
- Appellant appeals the June 23, 2011 order; the appeal concerns discovery and sanctions related to nonparties.
- Appeal treated as petition for writ of certiorari because the order is non-final and no adequate appellate remedy exists.
- Court analyzes physician-patient privilege under Ark. Rule of Evidence 503 and discovery rules to determine privilege applicability.
- Majority grants writ of certiorari and remands for Rule 11 sanctions consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privilege vs. nonparty access to records | McKenzie argues records are privileged and nonparty status blocks access | Pierce argues court may access records to resolve custody | Writ lies; records privileged; nonparties cannot be subpoenaed without party status |
| Appellate remedy and finality | McKenzie lacks final order appeal rights | State defends appellate route | Interlocutory order reviewable by writ under extraordinary-relief standards |
| Authority to subpoena nonparties’ medical records | Subpoenas seek records not in issue for custody | Court should determine health issues relevant to custody | Subpoenas improper; privilege protects nonparties; no waiver via nonparty status |
| Remand on Rule 11 sanctions | Sanctions may be appropriate if quash should have been granted | Record insufficient for sanctions at this stage | Remand for reconsideration of Rule 11 sanctions |
| Remedy under Rule 26 protective orders | Rule 26(c) shields nonparties from discovery | Rule 26 not applicable to nonparties in this context | Rule 26 protective-order remedy not available to McKenzie here |
Key Cases Cited
- Kraemer v. Patterson, 342 Ark. 481 (2000) (writ lies when privilege and abuse shown; not about discovery in general)
- Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 186 (2000) (privilege inapplicable to nonparties unless issue is brought by party)
- Chiodini v. Lock, 373 Ark. 88 (2008) (discretionary discovery rulings not reviewable by certiorari; exceptions exist)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Harper, 353 Ark. 328 (2003) (interlocutory discovery order generally not appealable)
- Monticello Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Goodman, 2010 Ark. 339 (2010) (discovery rulings; mootness exceptions and certiorari admissibility)
- Baptist Health v. Pulaski Cnty. Circuit Court, 373 Ark. 455 (2008) (certiorari limits where underlying merits would require review of privileged materials)