Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-2396
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cv-02855-WMN)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Dr.
underlying
Olachi
Mezu
litigation,
(Dr.
Mezu),
appeals
the
non-party
district
to
courts
the
order
employment
discrimination
suit
against
her
employer,
Morgan
August
13,
2009,
the
day
that
Dr.
Mezu
was
care
for
Dr.
Mezu
for
the
period
of
August
31,
2009
to
applied
December 4, 2009.
to
extend
the
period
of
FMLA
Thereafter,
leave
until
information.
Plaintiff
and
she
that
would
On
her
be
November
request
placed
on
for
13,
2009,
paid
unpaid
sick
leave,
Defendants
leave
was
effective
immediately,
until
she
provided
the
necessary
medical
documentation.
Thereafter,
Plaintiff
initiated
the
underlying
Plaintiff
was
not
entitled
to
under
the
FMLA,
motion
interests
in
to
the
quash
medical
the
subpoena,
records.
asserting
Following
Dr. Mezu
her
privacy
hearing,
the
that,
although
[t]he
medical
records
sought
by
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
26(b),
Defendants
failed
judge
provided
Defendants
an
to
make
the
However, the
opportunity
to
from
qualified
medical
professional
demonstrating
subsequently
submitted
an
affidavit
from
inadequate
to
establish
4
whether
Dr.
Mezu
was
affidavit.
reason
for
striking
Dr.
Conways
affidavit.
the
subpoena,
reasoning
that
Dr.
Mezus
additional
rights
in
these
documents
will
be
protected
through
production
excessively
Plaintiff
of
the
burdensome
and
Dr.
documents
or
Mezu
cannot
be
expensive.
filed
said
to
Thereafter,
objections
to
be
both
the
magistrate
courts
subsequent
Mezu
appealed
the
district
are
confidential
and
protected
from
under
this
at
exercise
court
issue,
has
jurisdiction
emphasizing
jurisdiction
interlocutory
posture.
to
that
review
Defendants
5
to
review
appellate
discovery
further
the
discovery
courts
orders
assert
seldom
in
an
that
the
are
district
properly
court
within
gave
the
scope
appropriate
of
discovery
consideration
and
the
to
the
first
address
the
issue
of
jurisdiction.
This
orders.
A final
nothing
for
the
court
to
do
but
execute
the
judgment.
Discovery
orders
generally
do
not
meet
this
requirement
involved
House,
Inc.,
quotation
27
marks
in
the
F.3d
and
action.
116,
119
citations
MDK,
(4th
omitted);
Inc.
v.
Cir.
1994)
see
Mikes
also
Train
(internal
Church
of
However,
called
in
Perlman
Perlman
this
court
doctrine
v.
United
has
recognized
announced
States,
247
by
the
U.S.
7,
the
Supreme
13
soCourt
(1918),
as
disinterested
third
party
is
treated
as
an
immediately
sufficient
stake
in
refusing compliance.
the
proceeding
to
risk
contempt
by
n.11; see also United States v. Meyers, 593 F.3d 338, 345 (4th
Cir.
2010)
(discussing
Perlman
doctrine).
In
this
case,
Mezus
citation
medical
for
records
contempt
opportunity
for
jurisdiction
to
in
judicial
review
and
would
order
to
review.
the
presumably
secure
for
not
Dr.
Accordingly,
discovery
order
risk
Mezu
a
an
appellate
exists
under
court
substantial
discretion
in
managing
district
courts
discovery
7
orders
for
abuse
of
discretion.
Carefirst
of
Md.,
Inc.
v.
Carefirst
Pregnancy
An abuse of
erroneous
legal
principles
or
rests
upon
clearly
court has a definite and firm conviction that the court below
committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached
upon a weighing of the relevant factors.
On
records
are
appeal,
Dr.
private
Mezu
and
Id.
emphasizes
that
confidential,
her
medical
maintaining
that
notes
that
the
Health
Insurance
Dr. Mezu
Portability
and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. 1320d-1320d9, provides protections against disclosure of medical records.
However, HIPAA also permits release of such records in response
to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process.
C.F.R.
the
164.512(e)(1)(ii).
confidential
and
The
private
magistrate
nature
of
Dr.
judge
45
appreciated
Mezus
records,
Order
designating
Dr.
Mezus
subpoenaed
8
medical
records
as
confidential,
requiring
the
records
to
be
filed
under
seal,
employed
by
the
parties,
and
one
designated
client
to
magistrate
judges
discovery
order
are
not
compelling.
Dr. Mezu also asserts that her medical records simply
have no relevance to any of the claims in [Plaintiffs] lawsuit
and are totally irrelevant to any dispute between Plaintiff and
[her employer].
not shared with the employee, which the employee would not have
had the training to evaluate, have no possible relevance to
Plaintiffs FMLA interference claim because [a]s long as the
doctors told the employee that [Dr. Mezu] needed care, it would
be irrelevant even if the records showed that these physicians
were wrong or even, for some reasons, lying.
to
Dr.
Mezus
assertions,
the
magistrate
judge and the district court properly found that her medical
records
are
relevant
to
the
underlying
lawsuit.
Plaintiff
Yashenko v. Harrahs NC
Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541, 549 (4th Cir. 2006).
To do so,
Deposit Ins. Corp., 357 F.3d 373, 384 (4th Cir. 2001) (to state
FMLA interference claim, plaintiff must establish that employee
or applicable relative was afflicted with an FMLA-qualifying
condition, because otherwise she did not have any right under
the
Act
with
which
her
employer
could
have
interfered.).
has
been
foreclosed
by
Fourth
Circuit
precedent.
We
FMLA
by
failing
to
seek
second
opinion
under
the
statute
in Rhoads v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 357 F.3d 373, 385 (4th
Cir. 2001), holding that the FMLA does not require an employer
to obtain a second opinion or else waive any future opportunity
to contest the validity of the certification.
conclusion,
we
emphasized,
The
FMLA
In reaching this
provides
only
that
an
her condition.
the Act does not suggest that an employer must pursue these
[second
opinion]
procedures
or
be
forever
foreclosed
from
Id.
magistrate
judges
discovery
order,
as
the
subpoenaed
and
materials
legal
before
court
are
adequately
and
argument
decisional process.
11
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
AFFIRMED
12