United States District Court, D. Arizona
AARON and BREANNA CHEATWOOD, individually and as Next Best Friend of D.C., a minor child, Plaintiffs,
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
RUSSEL HOLLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Sentinel Air Medical Alliance moves to quash or modify
plaintiffs' subpoena duces tecum served on non-party,
Bryan E. Bledsoe, D.O. This motion is opposed. Oral argument was
requested but is not deemed necessary.
April 2015, plaintiffs' son (D.C.) was transported by a
medical transport helicopter from Yuma Regional Medical
Center to Banner Cardon Children's Medical Center.
Defendant Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust denied
payment for the cost of the air transport, allegedly based on
an opinion obtained from Sentinel that the air transport was
not medically necessary. In their amended complaint,
plaintiffs assert breach of contract and breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing claims against Christian
Brothers Services (CBS) and the Trust. Plaintiffs have
alleged that CBS and the Trust “acted unreasonably by
relying upon the opinion of Sentinel Air, an obviously biased
and anti-claimant medical reviewer, to deny [p]laintiffs'
claim.” Plaintiffs assert an aiding and abetting
claim against Sentinel based on allegations that Sentinel
aided and abetted CBS's and the Trust's breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Bledsoe did a medical necessity review for Sentinel. In his
initial report, Dr. Bledsoe concluded that air transport had
not been medically necessary in D.C.'s
case. In a supplemental report, Dr. Bledsoe
again concluded that air transport had not been medically
subpoena served on Dr. Bledsoe, plaintiffs requested seven
different categories of documents, and the parties were able
to reach an agreement as to the production of documents in
response to requests Nos. 1-4. However, the following three
requests are still at issue:
5. Reports of medical necessity reviews you have participated
in (solely or with others) from January 1, 2013 to present
(the identity of the persons examined may be redacted, or
alternatively plaintiff[s] will agree to enter into a binding
stipulation to maintain the confidentiality of the identities
of the persons examined);
6. All W-9's received for compensation derived directly
or indirectly from your work performing medical necessity
reviews for the tax years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016; and
7. The number of medical necessity reviews you have
participated in (solely or with others) from January 1, 2013,
to the present, broken down by the number performed on behalf
of plaintiffs and the number performed on behalf of
now moves to quash these three requests.
Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of nonparties by
subpoena.” ATS Products, Inc. v. Champion
Fiberglass, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 527, 530 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Rule 45 provides, in pertinent part, that
[o]n timely motion, the court for the district where
compliance is required must quash or ...