Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Borum v. Smith

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division

July 14, 2017

CYNTHIA GAY BORUM, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nichole Alyce Borum PLAINTIFF
v.
JUNG WOOK KANG SMITH, MD; DEACONESS CLINIC, INC.; DEACONESS HOSPITAL, INC. and DEACONESS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          H. Brent Brennenstuhl United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is the motion of Defendants (collectively “Deaconess”) for a protective order regarding Plaintiff's request to inspect Deaconess' electronic medical records, to have Deaconess provide her with an exact copy of those records in native-format and to allow access to Deaconess' electronic records system during the course of depositions (DN 19). The Plaintiff has responded at ¶ 21 and Deaconess has replied at ¶ 26.

         Nature of the Case

         Plaintiff is the Administratrix of the estate of Nicole Borum. Plaintiff contends that Borum attempted to harm herself in the aftermath of the end of a relationship. Following initial treatment at another hospital, she came under the medical care of Defendant Dr. Smith, who was employed by a Deaconess entity. The Plaintiff alleges that on Borum's second visit, Dr. Smith prescribed an antidepressant. On the third visit Dr. Smith doubled the prescription for a six-month supply and scheduled Borum's next visit a year in the future. Three weeks later Borum committed suicide. She was twenty-three. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants were negligent in failing to closely monitor Borum's condition notwithstanding a product warning that the medication could increase the risk of suicide in young adults and therefore close supervision was required.

         Plaintiff's Discovery Requests

         Deaconess employs an electronic medical records (“EMR”) system to maintain patient care records, utilizing a software system licensed by Epic Systems Corporation (DN 19). Plaintiff has described her discovery requests to Deaconess:

1. To inspect Borum's medical records in electronic format on Deaconess' computer system;
2. To inspect Deaconess' EMR system's functionality by creating a “test” patient in the system and exploring the system options;
3. To obtain an electronic exact copy of Borum's health information, including all the meta-data and audit trail information concerning her records, and print outs or screen shots of any information Deaconess cannot produce electronically, and;
4. To utilize Deaconess' EMR system during the depositions of medical care providers and corporate representatives “which is the only way Plaintiff can explore the physician's uses and understanding of the system”

(DN 21 at PageID # 327).

         Standard of Review

         Deaconess seeks protection under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). The rule provides that, upon a showing of good cause, a Court may issue an order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id. The party seeking the protective order must establish that good cause exists for the entry of the order by making a “particularized and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n. 16 (1981). The Court may place limitations on discovery if the information requested is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or is obtainable from another, more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source. Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). The Court may also place limitations on discovery if the party seeking discovery has already had ample opportunity to obtain the information sought or the request exceeds the permitted scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) and (ii).

         Rule 26(b)(1), in turn, instructs that the permissible scope of discovery encompasses "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Id. Consequently, the two prongs of the discovery analysis are whether the information sought is relevant and whether it is proportional.

         1. Plaintiff's Request to Inspect Borum's Records on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.