Patrick Clarke; Christine Bauknecht; Mary Ann Davis; Freda Lorriaine Taylor v. Providence St. Joseph Health; Providence Health & Services; Providence Health and Services—Washington d/b/a Providence; Providence St. Mary Medical Center; and Providence Medical Group d/b/a Providence Medical Group Southeast Washington Neurosurgery, a/k/a PMG Neuroscience Institute, Walla Walla a/k/a Neuroscience Institute d/b/a Providence

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington partially denied Defendants’ Rule 26(c) motion for a protective order and partially granted Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to authorize use of discovery from companion cases. The court permitted Plaintiffs to use specified discovery from Estes, Batten, and Palmer concerning the related qui tam action, subject to redaction requirements and specificity for any additional materials.

Holdings

1. Providence did not establish good cause for the requested protective order because its assertions of burden, overbreadth, and disproportionality did not demonstrate the particularized harm or prejudice required by Rule 26(c).
2. Plaintiffs were permitted to use discovery produced in Estes, Batten, and Palmer concerning the qui tam action, subject to the same redaction requirements applicable in the related proceedings.
3. If plaintiffs seek additional materials or discovery, including materials from cases not addressed in the order, they must identify the relevant documents with specificity and explain why the materials are necessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Providence established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for a protective order limiting plaintiffs' use of discovery from related cases.
2. Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to use discovery produced in Estes, Batten, and Palmer in this litigation.
3. What limitations should govern plaintiffs' use of discovery from the companion cases.

Disposition

other