Larsen v. Iron County et al, No. 2:2013cv01103 - Document 52 (D. Utah 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 41 Motion to Compel Production; denying 27 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 11/23/16 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Larsen v. Iron County et al Doc. 52 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION BRIDGET LARSEN, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 2:13-cv-01103-DN-PMW v. IRON COUNTY et al. Defendants. District Judge David Nuffer Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner District Judge David Nuffer referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court are (1) Defendants Iron County, Mark Gower, and Jody Edwards’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion for protective order or, alternatively, to require Plaintiff to bear the costs of redaction and production;2 and (2) Plaintiff Bridget Larsen’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel production of the same documents.3 Judge Nuffer ordered the parties to follow the Short Form Discovery Motion Procedure.4 Despite this, both sides filed long form motions.5 Going forward, the court will deny any motion that fails to comply with Judge Nuffer’s order. Plaintiff was a paramedic for Iron County Ambulance Service (“ICAS”). Plaintiff alleges that ICAS implemented a policy that improperly limited her free speech rights, and that she was 1 Docket no. 32. 2 Docket no. 27. 3 Docket no. 41. 4 Docket no. 11. 5 See docket no. 27 and 41. Dockets.Justia.com terminated after raising certain issues about ICAS practices. Those issues included, inter alia, (1) “lack of compliance with the Paramedic Ambulance Service Response Configuration and state regulations in terms of the required equipment, medication, staff and training”; and (2) “fraudulent ambulance billing practices.”6 Plaintiff alleges that she is a whistleblower and that her rights under the First Amendment and Utah’s Protection of Public Employees Act have been violated. The two motions are two sides of the same coin—Plaintiff seeks to compel production and Defendants seek to prevent it. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s requests for certain medical records are irrelevant and that redacting personal health information (“PHI”) to comply with HIPAA or other laws would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiff asserts that the records help establish ICAS’s purported improper practices, and thus are relevant to claims regarding Plaintiff’s whistleblowing.7 Defendants initially represented that that there are approximately 19,000 responsive pdf files, each of which requires inserting a password before it can be reviewed. Plaintiff agreed to withdraw a request for billing records8 and contends that number of files is probably closer to 4,000.9 Defendants subsequently acknowledged that, contrary to their original representations, counsel “has been able to review each document without the necessity of inserting a password.”10 Even with this change and Plaintiff’s concession on billing records, Defendants 6 Docket no. 2. 7 See docket no. 41 at 6-8. 8 See docket no. 28 at 4. 9 Docket no. 28 at 15. 10 Docket no. 30 at 5. 2 still claim approximately 19,000 files and that review and redaction before production would cost $6,000.11 Defendants’ motion is DENIED12 and Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.13 The information sought appears “relevant to [a] party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case” under the liberal discovery standards. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Further, the burden articulated by Defendants is no different than that borne by any other party responding to requests for production, and does not approach the level of undue burden or expense. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, Defendants are ordered to produce all documents responsive to the request with any PHI redacted as required by law. Defendants do not have to produce documents that they have already produced. If necessary, amended responses must be served within twenty-one (21) of the date of this order. The court declines to impose sanctions on Defendants at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 23rd day of November, 2016. BY THE COURT: PAUL M. WARNER United States Magistrate Judge 11 Docket nos. 30 at 7 and 43 at 7. 12 Docket no. 27. 13 Docket no. 41. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
