NANCY E. ROONEY,
Individually and as Administratrix of the
Estate of Patrick B. Rooney, Deceased,
and Brian E. Rooney,
Plaintiffs,
v.
McKENNAN HOSPITAL,
a South Dakota Corporation, Daniel J. Kangley, M.D.,
and Cynthia Huntimer, M.D., Jointly and Severally,
Defendants.
[1999 DSD 4]
United States District Court
District of South Dakota - Southern Division
CIV. 97-4235
ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY
Stephen M. Palmer, Sioux Falls, SD
Kevin E. McDermott, Robert E. Sweeney Co., Cleveland, OH
Jeffrey R. Wahl, Cleveland, OH
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James E. McMahon, Roger A. Sudbeck
Boyce, Murphy, McDowell & Greenfield, Sioux Falls, SD
Attorneys for McKennan Hospital and Kangley
Edwin E. Evans, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, SD
Attorney for Huntimer
Filed Jan 25, 1999
Mark F. Marshall, Magistrate Judge
[¶1] This matter came before the court on Defendant McKennan Hospital and Daniel J. Kangley, M.D.’s motion to compel discovery (Doc. 57) on January 20, 1999. Defendants McKennan Hospital and Daniel J. Kangley, M.D., appeared by their counsel of record, Lisa Hansen Marso, Defendant Cynthia Huntimer, M.D., appeared by her counsel of record, Melissa Hinton, and plaintiffs appeared by their counsel of record, Stephen Palmer. The court has reviewed the motion to compel, listened to the arguments of counsel, and reviewed the entire file herein. Based upon that review, the court hereby grants the motion to compel for the following reasons.
[¶2] McKennan Hospital propounded a series of interrogatories to plaintiff such as the following:
Interrogatory No. 3: Please identify all individuals at Westlake who treated Patrick Rooney.
Interrogatory No. 4: Please state the names of each and every psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctor, counselor, or therapist who provided any services to Patrick Rooney in California between 1989 and 1991.
Interrogatory No. 5: Please identify every psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctor, counselor or therapist who provided any services to Patrick Rooney in North Carolina.
[¶3] Plaintiffs, who are the mother and father of the late Patrick Rooney, answered Interrogatories 3, 4 and 5 as follows:
Answer to Interrogatory No. 3: As we understand, Patrick was treated only by Dr. Freidel.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 4: We have no knowledge as to who Patrick was treated by in California between 1989 and 1991.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 5: We have no knowledge as to who Patrick was treated by in North Carolina.
[¶4] In addition to answering the interrogatories in a manner as set forth above, the plaintiffs also provided executed medical authorizations to Patrick’s health care professional, Richard A. Freidel, M.D. Dr. Freidel refused to honor the medical authorization. Additionally, the medical records which Dr. Freidel provided to plaintiffs were redacted and appeared incomplete.
[¶5] As at least one federal district court has noted:
The proper way to answer an interrogatory is found in Miller v. Doctors General Hospital, 76 FRD 136, 140 (W.D. Okla. 1977). The answers to interrogatories must be responsive, full, complete, and unevasive. The answering party cannot limit his answers to matters within his own knowledge and ignore information immediately available to him or under his control. ... If an appropriate interrogatory is propounded, the answering party will be required to give the information available to him, if any, through his attorney, investigators employed by him or on his behalf of other agents or representatives, whether personally known to the answering party or not. ... If the answering party lacks necessary information to make a full, fair, and specific answer to an interrogatory, it should so state under oath and set forth in detail the efforts made to obtain the information.
Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago v. Katon, 136 FRD 682, 684 (D. Kansas, 1991).
[¶6] When compared to the standard enunciated by the court in Continental Illinois, the plaintiff’s answers in this case fall short of the mark. While the plaintiff cannot compel Dr. Freidel to provide complete and unredacted documents in response to its request, the plaintiffs’ nonetheless can answer the defendant’s interrogatories as required by Rule 33.
[¶7] Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the defendants’ motion to compel (Doc. 57) is granted.