State ex rel. Health Care Alliance, Inc. v. O'Briant

• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ARMSTEAD, J.
• Citation: State ex rel. Health Care Alliance, Inc. v. O'Briant, 859 S.E.2d 746 (W. Va. 2021)
• Decision Date: 15 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-1029,20-1029
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia EX REL. HEALTH CARE ALLIANCE, INC. and HCFS Health Care Financial Services, LLC d/b/a Alcoa Billing Center, Petitioners v. The Honorable Eric O'BRIANT, Judge of the Circuit Court of Logan County, and Kelsey Starr, Respondents

859 S.E.2d 746

STATE of West Virginia EX REL. HEALTH CARE ALLIANCE, INC. and HCFS Health Care Financial Services, LLC d/b/a Alcoa Billing Center, Petitioners

v.The Honorable Eric O'BRIANT, Judge of the Circuit Court of Logan County, and Kelsey Starr, Respondents

No. 20-1029

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: May 4, 2021

Filed: June 15, 2021

Michael D. Dunham, Esq., Caleb B. David, Esq., Shuman McCuskey Slicer PLLC, Charleston, WV, Counsel for Petitioners, Health Care Alliance, Inc. and HCFS Health Care Financial Services, LLC d/b/a Alcoa Billing Center.

Steven S. Wolfe, Esq., Wolfe, White & Associates, Logan, WV, Counsel for Respondent Starr.

ARMSTEAD, J.:

This case involves a petition for writ of prohibition seeking to preclude the Circuit Court of Logan County from enforcing its order granting a motion to compel discovery. The order at issue compelled Petitioner to disclose: (1) the names and addresses of all individuals with a West Virginia billing address who received communications from Health Care Financial Services (hereinafter "HCFS") between June 2016 and the time Respondent Starr filed her Complaint; and (2) account information regarding the individuals who received these particular communications. Further, Petitioner was ordered to provide this information "in searchable format." The circuit court further ordered that such responses "shall not be disclosed by [Respondent Starr], or [Respondent Starr's] counsel, outside the scope of this litigation, and [Respondent Starr] shall return or destroy the protected health information at the end of the litigation or proceeding."

After careful review of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, the appendix record, and the applicable law, we find that the circuit court clearly erred and exceeded its legitimate powers by granting the motion to compel. We therefore grant the writ of prohibition, as moulded, and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 8, 2020, Respondent Starr filed a Complaint against Health Care Alliance, Inc. ("HCA") and Alcoa Billing Center in the Circuit Court of Logan County. On June 29, 2020, Respondent Starr filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against HCA and HCFS Health Care Financial Services, LLC, dba Alcoa Billing Center ("HCFS"). In her Amended Complaint, Respondent Starr alleges that HCA and HCFS are debt collectors pursuant to the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"). She further alleges that HCFS sent her a collection letter in 2019, but the letter appears to be from "Alcoa Billing Center." With respect to Alcoa, she alleges that HCFS "has not registered the tradename or dba Alcoa Billing Center with the State of West Virginia" and has, thus, violated the WVCCPA.¹ In particular, Respondent Starr alleges that HCFS violated West Virginia Code § 46A-2-127 which prohibits, in part, the use of "fraudulent, deceptive or misleading representation or means to collect or attempt to collect claims" including "[t]he use of any business, company or organization name while engaged in the collection of claims, other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company or organization[.]" See W. Va. Code § 46A-2-127(a).

On or about June 30, 2020, Respondent Starr served her First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to HCFS. On August 13, 2020, HCFS responded to the discovery requests, and by letter dated August 18, 2020, counsel for Respondent Starr requested supplementation of HCFS's discovery responses. Counsel's letter referenced Interrogatory Nos. 3, 13, and 14 as well as Request for Production Nos. 7 and 11. Respondent Starr filed a Motion to Compel on August 28, 2020, and on the same date, HCFS served supplemental responses to the discovery requests. HCFS served its second supplemental response to the discovery requests on November 12, 2020. Following the supplemental responses, Respondent Starr requested that the circuit court proceed with consideration of her Motion to Compel. However, by that time, the parties had narrowed the issues to be considered down to three discovery disputes: (1) Interrogatory No. 3; (2) Interrogatory No. 13; and (3) Request for Production No. 11.

The requests and the responses are as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For a period between June 2016 and present, identify all individuals with a West Virginia address whom Defendant HCFS sent written statements, letters, or other written communications evidencing an amount due or allegedly due. Please list the consumer's name and address, date letter was sent, the name of original creditor, original creditor's account or reference number, the amount owed or allegedly owed, and the current balance.²

INTERROGATORY NO. 13

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please provide a list of all medical or health care providers in West Virginia towit [sic] the Defendant HCFS provides services.³

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: For Defendant HCFS, please produce in searchable formatting (such as excel) the identification of every individual with a West Virginia address that was sent a letter, account statement, bill, or written request for payment between June 2016 and present. For every such individual, please produce in electronic searchable format, excel format, or other format the consumer's name and address, date letter was sent, the name of original creditor, original creditor's account or reference number, the amount owed or allegedly owed, and the current balance.⁴

By order entered on December 4, 2020, the Circuit Court of Logan County granted Respondent Starr's motion to compel. In its order, the circuit court found that the account information requested by Respondent Starr (including the name of original creditor, account number, amount allegedly owed, and current balance) "goes towards proving at the certification stage common questions of fact or law, typical claims or common defenses, i.e., ‘commonality’ and ‘typicality.’ " As to the specific discovery requests, the order required Petitioner HCFS to supplement its responses to Request for Production No. 11 and Interrogatory No. 3 within sixty days of the entry of the order. Petitioner was further ordered to supplement its response to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 within ten (10) days of the ruling.⁵

Petitioners then filed the instant petition for writ of prohibition.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The factors to be considered for issuance of a writ of prohibition are well-established:

In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal's order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal's order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. These factors are general guidelines that serve as a useful starting point for determining whether a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need not be satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, should be given substantial weight.

Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger , 199 W. Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996).

" ‘A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. It will only issue where the trial court has no jurisdiction or having such jurisdiction exceeds its legitimate powers. W. Va. Code 53-1-1.’ Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver , 160 W. Va. 314, 233 S.E.2d 425 (1977)." Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Healthport Technologies, LLC v. Stucky , 239 W. Va. 239, 800 S.E.2d 506 (2017). In addition, this Court has held that "[a] writ of prohibition is available to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of its discretion in regard to discovery orders." Syl. Pt. 1, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stephens , 188 W. Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992). With these standards in mind, we turn to the parties’ respective arguments.

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioners argue that the circuit court committed clear legal error and exceeded its legitimate powers by granting Respondent Starr's motion to compel. They advance multiple arguments as to why the information sought should not be produced. We will begin our review by looking at the specific information that is sought by Respondent Starr in Interrogatory No. 3 and Request for Production No. 11. In Interrogatory No. 3, Respondent Starr seeks the following information about individuals to whom HCFS sent written communications between June 2016 and the present:

(1) consumer's names and addresses;

(2) date letter was sent;

(3) the name of the original creditor; (4) original creditor's account or reference number;

(5) the amount owed or allegedly owed; and

(6) the current balance.

In Request for Production No. 11, Respondent Starr requested Petitioners to produce the information above in an electronic searchable format "such as [E]xcel."

In support of its decision to grant the discovery at issue, the circuit court relied upon this Court's ruling in Love v. Georgia Pacific Corp. , 214 W. Va. 484, 590 S.E.2d 677 (2003) in which we concluded that:

Where a party seeks to proceed as a class representative under Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998], and where issues related to class certification are present, reasonable discovery related to class certification issues is

...