Individually and as a parent and natural guardian, Judy J. Wilfong sued St. John’s Mercy Medical Center and Dr. Garry R. Scarato, alleging injuries from their refusal to provide timely medical care. During discovery, the respondent judge issued the following order:
Judy Wilfong Stahlman ordered to sign authorizations for defendant’s attorneys as to all of her other children — siblings of it Charles Stahlman. Court will stay order for 15 days if plaintiff wishes to apply for writ.
Although the court of appeals denied her writ application, Wilfong still maintains that the authorizations permit discovery of privileged, irrelevant medical records. This Court issued a preliminary writ of prohibition, now made absolute. Mo.Const. art. V, § 4.
I.
Prohibition will issue if “there is an important question of law decided erroneously that would otherwise escape review by this Court, and the aggrieved party may suffer considerable hardship and expense as a consequence of the erroneous decision.”
State ex rel. Chassaing v. Mummert,
*409 II.
The circuit court’s order must be quashed for two reasons. First, the respondent judge used an improper procedure to compel inspection of the siblings’ medical records. The circuit court may order
parties
to produce only those documents in their possession, custody, or control.
Rule 58.01(d), Rule 61.01(d)
1
.
A subpoena duces tecum is the proper process to produce records in the possession, custody, or control of
non-parties. Rule 57.09(b), Rule 57.03(b)(1).
“Circuit courts have long been held to possess inherent authority to issue subpoena duces tecum in order to obtain documents necessary to the resolution of the action before them.”
State ex rel. Rowland Group, Inc. v. Koehr,
III.
Second, the parties dispute whether the physician-patient privilege bars discovery, by any procedure, of the other children’s medical records.
A.
The respondent asserts that Wilfong waived the siblings’ physician-patient privilege by mentioning their medical conditions in her interrogatory answers, her deposition, and an exhibit. Wilfong answers that she cannot waive the privilege on behalf of her other children.
The physician-patient privilege prevents a physician from disclosing information received in connection with treating a patient. Section 491.060(5) RSMo 1994;
Brandt v. Medical Defense Associates,
More importantly, Wilfong cannot waive the other children’s privilege. “[A] parent, as natural guardian, would have the right to
claim
the privilege on behalf of his child when it would be to the best interests of the minor to do so.”
In Re M.P.S.,
B.
Although not waived by Wilfong, the siblings’ physician-patient privilege is not absolute. Kli
nge v. Lutheran Med. Ctr. of St. Louis,
Wilfong contends that the siblings’ medical records are irrelevant because none of the other children suffer from the same ailments *410 as Charles. Respondent’s attorney asserts, without supporting evidence, that all the children suffer from similar genetic disorders.
During discovery, a party may obtain information regarding any relevant non-privileged matter, including material reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Rule 56.01(b)(1).
In this case, the respondent judge could order discovery of the siblings’ medical conditions only if they were relevant to the medical malpractice claim and adequate safeguards were provided to protect the non-parties as much as possible.
State ex rel. Benoit v. Randall,
VI.
The preliminary writ of prohibition is made absolute.
Notes
. All references are to Missouri Rules of Court 1996.
.
Minors may sue or defend only by a duly appointed guardian, next friend, or guardian ad litem.
Rule 52.02(a), (e).
While a "next friend and guardian ad litem are alike officers of the court with like powers, duties, and obligations,” a next friend typically represents minor plaintiffs and a guardian ad litem typically represents minor defendants.
Crawford, v. Amusement Syndicate Co.