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.

Amoah v. McKinney

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

April 27, 2016

NANA AMOAH Plaintiff,
v.
DENNIS MCKINNEY and SMITH TRANSPORT Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

David H. Hennessy, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Honorable Timothy S. Hillman has referred to me three discovery motions: two brought by defendants Dennis McKinney (“McKinney”) and Smith Transport (collectively, “defendants”) (Docket # 41, 43), and one brought by plaintiff Nana Amoah (Docket #46). See Docket # 51. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motions # 41 and # 43 are allowed in part and denied in part, and plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Introduction

This case arises from an automobile accident occurring on October 17, 2014. See Docket # 5 at p. 7. Each party contends the other is responsible for the accident. See generally id.; Docket # 4. By their motions (which plaintiff has not opposed), defendants seek discovery concerning plaintiff’s alleged lost wages and earning capacity, his cell phone records from the date of the accident, and medical bills and records (Docket # 41), [1] as well as further responses to defendants’ requests to admit (Docket # 43). Plaintiff’s motion (which defendants have opposed) seeks further testimony from a Smith Transport corporate defendant, McKinney’s personnel file and medical information, and metadata concerning the condition of defendants’ vehicle.

Legal Standard

The scope of discovery generally extends to:

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 in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).[2] As explained in In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. Products Liab. Litig., No. 13 MDL 2419, 2013 WL 6058483 (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2013),

Rule 26(b)(1) generally permits liberal discovery of relevant information. As the Supreme Court has instructed, because discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues, the limits set forth in Rule 26 must be construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. There are limits, however, on the scope of discovery. A court must limit discovery if it determines that the discovery sought is (1) unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the projected discovery in resolving the issues.

Id. at *3-4 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Defendants’ Motion # 41

Defendants seek discovery relating to three categories of information: medical records, past and future economic losses, and cell phone records. I will address each category in turn.

Medical Records

Defendants have sought (1) the names of each doctor who treated plaintiff for injuries suffered in this accident (Interrogatory # 8); (2) information about plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries (Interrogatory # 10); and (3) all medical records from the ten-year period prior to, and the period following, the subject accident (Document Request # 7). In response to Interrogatory # 8, plaintiff has provided the names of thirteen physicians who treated him in connection with this accident. See Docket # 41-4 ¶ 8. Defendants nonetheless contend that due to plaintiff’s “lack of production to date with respect to the other categories of documents, ” the court should formally order plaintiff to continually supplement his production of medical records and bills. As support, they note that when plaintiff was asked ...


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.