 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lund v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company12/6/2001
II. Claimant's Request for a Protective Order
St. Paul requests the Court to issue a protective order with regard to the discovery sought by claimant. A protective order is unnecessary. In this Order, the Court spells out the discovery obligations of both parties.
III. Respondent's Motion to Compel
As set forth earlier in this decision ( 4), St. Paul seeks an order compelling claimant to produce medical records which she has agreed to produce in response to St. Paul's discovery. In her response to the motion, claimant has filed an affidavit indicating that she has in fact provided St. Paul with all medical records she was able to obtain. The glitch is the failure of some of the medical providers to provide medical records she asked them to provide. That glitch is not her fault. St. Paul can obtain the records by subpoena.
That this is an issue at all is an indication of the failure of the parties' counsel to consult and cooperate with one another.
IV. Request for Sanctions
Finally, I address claimant's request for monetary sanctions. Her request is set forth in her Brief in Opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Compel at page 2. She alleges that St. Paul's motion to compel production of her medical records was unjustified.
The request for sanctions is an escalation of the discovery dispute. In this case, it is not justified. Both counsel have played hardball. Both counsel have flunked the collegiality test.
Either counsel could have requested a telephone conference with the Court to resolve their ongoing disputes. Most pretrial disputes are resolved through telephone conferences, avoiding time consuming, and expensive disputes such as occurred in the present case.
V. Summing Up
I hope it is clear from the foregoing discussion that I have little patience for discovery disputes of the sort presented in this case. I have little patience for hardball tactics. I expect counsel to cooperate. I expect full disclosure of documents and information relevant to the case. When disputes do arise, I am available for a telephone conference. If counsel wish the conference to be recorded, the Court will provide a court reporter. Injured workers deserve prompt resolution of their claims and insurers deserve a prompt determination of their liabilities.
ORDER
Claimant shall pare her discovery requests for her employer's documents to those documents she does not already have. Within seven calendar days of this Order, she shall serve her streamlined request upon St. Paul. St. Paul shall then have ten calendar days in which to respond. If the employer fails to fully cooperate in providing the documents requested, St. Paul or the claimant shall notify the Court. Upon such notice, the Court will join the employer as a party to this action and allow claimant to seek discovery directly from the employer.
Within seven calendar days of this Order, St. Paul shall provide claimant with a list of the claim file documents it has refused to produce and provide claimant with all information required by Rule 24.5.324(4) and (5). The claimant then has seven days in which to file a motion to compel. The motion must identify the specific documents she seeks and the reasons she believes she is entitled to the documents. Within 7 days thereafter, St. Paul shall provide the Court with copies of the documents in question and its response to the motion. The Court's hearing examiner will then review the documents in camera and determine which documents must be disclosed.
DATED in Helena, Montana, this 6th day of December, 2001.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|