Rahofy v. Steadman
2012 UT 70
| Utah | 2012Background
- Rahofy sued Steadman and Steadman Land & Livestock for injuries from an August 7, 2005 auto accident near Cedar City, Utah.
- Steadman acted as an agent of Steadman Land & Livestock; Rahofy, an Illinois resident, was en route to California for a new job.
- Defendants sent letters requesting Rahofy to sign authorizations to release medical and employment records for 20 years; Rahofy declined.
- District court ordered Rahofy to sign the authorizations and to list all medical records with privilege designations, with in-camera review for disputed items.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding Defendants failed to make a proper Rule 34 request and that the district court abused its discretion.
- This Utah Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying Rule 34 procedures and permitting subpoenas/out-of-state procedures if records are not in Rahofy’s possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether letters seeking authorizations satisfied Rule 34 | Rahofy contends letters were informal and not proper Rule 34 requests. | Steadman argues letters complied with discovery aims under Rule 34. | Letters did not meet Rule 34; improper requests. |
| Whether district court properly compelled authorizations | Rahofy argues there was no proper Rule 34 request to compel. | Steadman asserts district court acted within Rule 37 to compel. | District court abused its discretion; compelment reversed. |
| Whether out-of-state records may be obtained by subpoena | Rahofy’s records not necessarily in Rahofy’s possession; subpoenas may be needed. | Defendants should use subpoenas for out-of-state records or state procedures. | Subpoena process may be used; if not in possession, subpoena per Rule 45 or applicable state rules is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rahofy v. Steadman, 2010 UT App 350, 245 P.3d 201 (Utah App. 2010) (underlying case; authority on Rule 34 and discovery procedures)
- Cannon v. Salt Lake Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 2005 UT App 352, 121 P.3d 74 (Utah App. 2005) (relevance of medical records discovery procedures)
- Magana v. Dave Roth Constr., 2009 Utah 45, 215 P.3d 143 (Utah Supreme Court 2009) (standards for discovery and production requests)