Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc.

DISCOVERY

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC
v. Midwest Division, Inc., No. 05-2164-MLB-DWB (D.Kan. Mar. 26, 2007)

The United
States District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied
in part a hospital’s motions to compel discovery in an antitrust
suit filed against various insurance companies, health systems, and hospitals.

Regarding paper discovery, the court weighed relevance and burdensomeness
and granted the hospital’s motions to compel the health care entities
to produce hard copy or paper documents back to January 1, 2002; similar motions
regarding documents back to January 1, 2000 were denied. The court reasoned
that the January 1, 2002 time period provides the hospital with all relevant
information related to claims in this case.

Regarding the hospital’s interrogatories, the court found that each
of the health care entities failed to provide adequate answers to certain parts
of the interrogatories and ordered that they supplement those answers accordingly.

The court denied the hospital’s motion to compel the production, or,
alternatively, in camera review, of the entities’ joint-defense agreement.
First, the hospital offered no basis for why or how the joint-defense privilege
had been waived; second, the hospital cited no evidentiary authority for requiring
in camera inspection of the joint-defense agreement in this situation.

Regarding the hospital’s motions to discover documents regarding the
defendant entities’ net worth, the motion to discover historical financial
data was denied, because it was not at issue at that point in the litigation.
Regarding requested financial data relevant to punitive damages, the court
limited the financial information required from the defendants to the most
recent annual reports and current financial statements.

Regarding the hospital’s request for non-party documents, the court
denied these motions, finding that the hospital failed to show that the defendant
entities “controlled” the documents at issue.

Regarding the reasonableness of the hospital’s request for the production
of certain documents, the court granted one motion, finding that one defendant
hospital failed to comply with reasonable requests for documents regarding
the development or operation of specialty hospitals in the area. The court
denied a request to another defendant hospital for documents from “all
its employees and all its locations” for being overly vague.

Finally, the hospital asked the court to compel two of the entities to confirm
whether they had “fully responded” to each of the hospital’s
discovery requests. The court denied the request, finding that no more could
be expected.