Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; January 31, 2002; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Dr. Subba R. Alapati, the defendant in a case before the Madison Circuit Court, petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge E. Dwight Faye, Jr. to vacate a March 27, 2001 protective order that exempts the Healthcare Authority of the City of Huntsville (Huntsville Hospital) from responding to discovery requests related to agreements with other physicians. The Hospital is suing Dr. Alapati for approximately $10,920.42 over alleged unpaid loan obligations from a 1991 agreement under its medical staff development assistance program. Dr. Alapati denies the allegations and raises several affirmative defenses, including statute of limitations and waiver, while seeking discovery under Rule 26, Ala. R. Civ. P.
After Dr. Alapati's motion to compel was granted, the Hospital sought a protective order, arguing that the requested information about other physicians' agreements was irrelevant to whether Dr. Alapati owed money under his promissory note and that such financial records were privileged under Alabama law. The Hospital contended that producing this information could expose it to liability and that Dr. Alapati's theory of defense, which suggested that potential waivers given to other physicians could apply to him, lacked legal foundation. The Court ultimately denied Dr. Alapati's petition for a writ of mandamus.
On March 23, 2001, Dr. Alapati opposed the Hospital's motion for a protective order, arguing several points. First, the Hospital's motion, filed around March 14, 2001, was set for a hearing on the same date, but the defense counsel did not attempt to resolve the issue prior to filing. According to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c), a protective order motion must include a statement confirming that the moving party’s attorney sought to resolve the matter with opposing counsel beforehand; the Hospital's counsel failed to do so, warranting denial of the motion. Additionally, the Hospital did not file objections to the Interrogatories or Requests for Production before requesting the protective order, which came after a Motion to Compel was already granted. This situation aligns with the precedent set in Perry v. Golub, where the denial of the protective order is also justified.
The defense claims the discovery requests are relevant and material, asserting that the Hospital enforces medical staff contracts in an illegal manner, potentially violating 42 U.S.C. 1395nn regarding financial relationships between physicians and hospitals. The defendant argues that enforcement based on the volume of physician referrals would render such contracts void. Relevant case law, including Polk County Texas v. Peters and various Alabama cases, supports the notion that illegal contracts are unenforceable. The defendant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production aim to uncover information about the enforcement of contracts among other physicians, critical for demonstrating the alleged illegal practices of the Hospital. On March 27, 2001, the trial court heard the Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order.
The Court granted the Defendant’s Motion, stating that the Defendant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production did not contribute to discovering relevant and admissible evidence. On April 2, 2001, Dr. Alapati amended his answer to include an affirmative defense claiming the illegality of the contract, arguing that Huntsville Hospital's enforcement of the contract's collection provisions violated U.S.C.A. Title 42 Section 1395nn(a)(1) and (e)(4). On April 3, 2001, Dr. Alapati filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's granting of the Hospital's protective order, which was denied on April 5, 2001. Subsequently, Dr. Alapati petitioned the Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of mandamus, which was denied on July 10, 2001, without an opinion.
The criteria for issuing a writ of mandamus are established: there must be a clear legal right for the petitioner, an imperative duty on the respondent that is refused, the absence of an adequate remedy, and properly invoked jurisdiction. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and should not substitute for an appeal. The trial court's discretion in discovery matters is substantial, and the standard for review is whether there was an abuse of discretion. Dr. Alapati contends the writ should be granted due to the trial court's alleged abuse of discretion regarding the protective order, asserting that the requested material was relevant under Rule 26, Ala. R. Civ. P., and that the Hospital did not comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 26(c) in seeking the protective order. Rule 26 allows various discovery methods and stipulates that parties may obtain discovery of any non-privileged, relevant matter related to the case, regardless of its admissibility at trial, unless limited by court order.
A court may issue protective orders during discovery to shield parties from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden, upon a showing of good cause. Such orders can include preventing discovery entirely, imposing specific terms for discovery, limiting the scope of inquiries, or restricting access to certain information, among other measures. A motion for a protective order must include a statement from the attorney indicating efforts to resolve issues with opposing counsel prior to filing.
Dr. Alapati claims that the information he seeks is pertinent to his defense that his agreement with the Hospital is illegal, alleging that the Hospital selectively enforces agreements based on physician referrals, potentially violating 42 U.S.C. 1395nn. He references a case, Polk County v. Peters, which found a physician recruitment agreement illegal, as well as several Alabama cases asserting that illegal contracts are unenforceable.
However, the court concluded that Dr. Alapati's assertions do not influence the legality of his specific agreement with the Hospital. The court defined relevant information as that which relates to the action's subject matter and has a reasonable chance of leading to admissible evidence. It found that Dr. Alapati's requested information does not pertain to the legality of his contract and that he has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in maintaining the protective order. Consequently, he lacks a legal right to vacate the protective order issued on March 27, 2001.
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied, with Chief Justice Moore and Justices Brown and Stuart concurring. The federal district court in Peters found that a specific agreement was unenforceable under Texas law due to its violation of federal law but did not address the discoverability or relevance of other agreements between the hospital and different physicians. Regarding Dr. Alapati's claim that the hospital failed to comply with Rule 26(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically by not indicating attempts to resolve the discovery dispute with counsel, the court determined that this procedural shortcoming does not justify issuing the writ of mandamus. Citing Ex parte Compass Bank, the court emphasized that discovery rights are not unlimited and that trial courts possess broad discretion to manage discovery issues. The absence of strict adherence to Rule 26(c)'s requirements does not establish a clear legal right to vacate the protective order, which aligns with the intent expressed in the Committee Comments on the amendment to Rule 26(c), aimed at resolving disputes between counsel without resorting to protective orders.
