Small v. Ramsey
280 F.R.D. 264
N.D.W. Va.2012Background
- This is a West Virginia multinational action removed to federal court in Aug 2010, arising from a Feb 2009 icy-bridge accident injuring Small.
- An agreed order bifurcated bad-faith/UTPA (medical expense) claims against State Farm from liability claims against other defendants; Nationwide is interposed as intervenor.
- The parties disputed a protective order governing Small’s medical records produced in discovery, with multiple motions and responses filed in 2011.
- The district court referred non-dispositive motions to the magistrate judge and held a hearing on Oct 7, 2011, after which a protective order was proposed and drafted.
- The court granted a protective order limiting access/disclosure of Small’s medical records for six years from final disposition, adopting Bedell II standards and noting privacy interests and fraud-regulation considerations.
- The order permits redaction and controlled dissemination, with duties to destroy or seal records after the period and to permit limited review by regulatory authorities where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to participate in protective order | Small seeks protection; State Farm/Nationwide contested standing. | State Farm/Nationwide contend limited or no standing given bifurcation and scope. | State Farm has standing to be heard on common issues; Nationwide intervenor status is moot. |
| Right to privacy in medical records | Small has a privacy interest in non-public medical records and should be protected. | Insurers argue existing laws/regulations suffice and privacy concerns are overstated. | Court recognizes a privacy interest in medical records and authorizes a protective order to balance privacy against discovery needs. |
| Good cause for protective order | Protective order is necessary to prevent improper disclosure and protect privacy. | Protection is unnecessary or too broad given regulatory frameworks. | Court finds good cause for protective order based on privacy, risk of broad dissemination, and need to balance fraud-regulation interests. |
| Terms and scope of protection for medical records | Protective terms must restrict dissemination to those involved in evaluation/resolution of claims. | Terms should align with regulatory disclosures and avoid overbreadth. | Court adopts protective order with six-year term, redaction, and controlled disclosure, allowing limited use and post-disposition destruction or sealing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bedell, 228 W.Va. 252 (W.Va. 2011) (Bedell II; privacy in medical records; protective order framework)
- State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bedell, 226 W.Va. 138 (W.Va. 2010) (Bedell I; limits on mandatory destruction of records; comity)
- Bedell II, 228 W.Va. 252, 719 S.E.2d 722 (W.Va. 2011) (protective order framework and privacy protections)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (U.S. 2011) (First Amendment considerations in data-access/sharing; limits on dissemination of discovery information)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1979) (pretrial discovery not public; protection of undisclosed information)