Mann v. University of Cincinnati
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16778, 152 F.R.D. 119, 1993 WL 492186 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's ex parte acquisition of an opposing party's highly personal medical records prior to a subpoena's return date, in circumvention of the party's known privacy objections, violates the party's constitutional right to privacy and warrants sanctions under the court's inherent power and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Facts:
- Lisa Mann, a student at the University of Cincinnati, alleged that two university employees sexually harassed her, causing her to suffer emotional distress.
- During discovery, defendants' counsel requested Mann sign medical releases, which she refused, citing privacy concerns over the contents of her records.
- On April 2, 1993, defendants' counsel issued a subpoena duces tecum to the University's Student Health Services for Mann's 'complete medical file,' with a production date of April 9, 1993.
- Simultaneously, defendants' counsel sent an ex parte letter to the Student Health Services, not provided to Mann's counsel, encouraging the production of the records prior to the April 9 deadline.
- The University's own counsel advised the Student Health Services to comply with the early production request.
- On April 6, 1993, three days before the subpoena's return date, defendants' attorney reviewed Mann’s entire medical file, which contained sensitive gynecological and sexual history, and copied several pages without Mann's or her counsel's knowledge or consent.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Mann filed suit against the University of Cincinnati and two employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- During discovery, Mann's counsel filed a motion for a protective order and to quash a subpoena for her medical records before a Magistrate Judge.
- The Magistrate Judge ordered the subpoena quashed and mandated an in camera review of any records to which Mann objected.
- After learning that defendants' counsel had already improperly viewed the records, Mann's counsel filed a motion for sanctions.
- The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing and issued a Report and Recommendation finding that defendants' counsel had violated Mann's rights and recommended imposing sanctions, including a monetary penalty and attorney's fees.
- The Defendants filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, bringing the matter before the District Court Judge for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's conduct of issuing a subpoena for an opposing party's highly personal medical records and then obtaining and reviewing them ex parte before the return date, despite knowing of the party's privacy objections, violate the party's constitutional right to privacy and warrant judicial sanctions?
Opinions:
Majority - Spiegel, J.
Yes. Obtaining an opposing party's highly private medical records before a subpoena's return date and without notice violates the party's constitutional right to privacy and warrants sanctions. The court found that an individual possesses a constitutional right of privacy in their personal medical information, especially information of a highly sensitive nature. While this right is not absolute in litigation, a party is entitled to have the court conduct an in camera review to balance the necessity of disclosure against the individual's privacy interest before the records are produced to opposing counsel. By issuing a subpoena and then using an ex parte letter to obtain the records before the return date, defense counsel deliberately circumvented the procedural safeguards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 that allow a party to seek a protective order. This conduct infringed upon Mann's fundamental right to privacy and constituted an abuse of the discovery process, justifying severe sanctions to deter future misconduct, compensate the plaintiff, and punish the offenders.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the constitutional protection of privacy in personal medical records within the context of civil discovery. It establishes that a plaintiff's claim for emotional distress does not grant the opposing party an unrestricted right to their entire medical history. The ruling serves as a stark warning to legal practitioners that abusing procedural tools like subpoenas to bypass judicial oversight and gain unauthorized access to sensitive information will result in significant sanctions. The decision reinforces the court's role as a gatekeeper in discovery disputes involving private information and highlights the importance of the in camera review process to balance legitimate discovery needs against fundamental privacy rights.
