Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Peralta

• Decision Date: 02 May 1978
• Docket Number: No. 78-7,78-7
• Citation: 358 So. 2d 232
• Parties: ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, and B. G. Gross, M.D., Petitioners, v. Abigail PERALTA and Pedro Peralta, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 232

358 So.2d 232

ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, and B. G. Gross, M.D., Petitioners, v.Abigail PERALTA and Pedro Peralta, Respondents.

No. 78-7.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

May 2, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1978.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, McMath, Tutan & O'Hara and Richard A. Sherman and William S. Reese, Miami, for petitioners.

Sullivan, Cochran, Ranaghan, Bailey & Gleason and Philip M. Warren, Pompano Beach, for respondents.

Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL(Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

By this petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioners seek review of an order of the trial court directing them to produce certain medical records of the petitioner, B. G. Gross.

The respondent, Abigail Peralta, employed Dr. Gross to perform certain cosmetic surgery.The procedure was unsuccessful and the respondents institute the instant action seeking damages for medical malpractice.In the course of discovery, the respondent propounded to Dr. Gross an extensive notice to produce, containing among other things the following:

"2.Any and all business records of Defendant, B. G. Gross, M. D. including cancelled checks, check ledgers, receipt ledgers, disbursement ledgers, and any and all other business records which relate to the injection of silicone in patients for the period of 1966 to present.

"23.Any and all photographs in the possession of the Defendant, B. G. Gross, M. D. or his attorneys relating to the injection of liquid silicone.

"28.Any and all medical reports, written memoranda, consent forms, relating to silicone injections in Defendant, B. G. Gross' patients from 1966 to present."

The petitioners objected thereto, alleging the materials were irrelevant, the request was burdensome, and it constituted a violation of the doctor-patient privilege between Dr. Gross and persons not involved in the suit.The trial court denied the objections but ordered that the patients' names and addresses be deleted from the records and that their faces on the photographs be blanked out.

On review, the petitioners contend it was error to order production of medical records and photographs of persons not a party to the action.We agree.

While liberal construction is to be given to rules of discovery, the request must still seek relative matters and must not be so excessive so as to be unduly burdensome to the party ordered to produce.Riddle Airlines, Inc. v. Mann, 123 So.2d 685(Fla.3d DCA1960);International Business Machines Corporation v. Elder, 187 So.2d 82(Fla.3d DCA1966);Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 297 So.2d 861(Fla.2d DCA1974);10 Fla.Jur., Discovery and Depositions, § 13.Certainly, requiring the petitioner to produce his records for a period of about eleven years would be so excessive and burdensome as to require entry of a protective order.Furthermore, at this stage of the proceedings in the trial court there has been no showing of relevancy to the cause of the documents sought to be produced and they too should have been entitled to a protective order on that ground....