Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mavrinac v. Emergency Medicine Association of Pittsburgh

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


July 3, 2007

JOAN M. MAVRINAC, M.D., M.PH., PLAINTIFF,
v.
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH (EMAP), MERCY HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH, PITTSBURGH MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, AND BRUCE A. MACLEOD, M.D., FACEP, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Nora Barry Fischer

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 3rd day of July, 2007, upon consideration of Defendants The Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Mercy Health System's (the "Mercy Defendants") Motion to Compel Production of the Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff and Defendants Emergency Medicine Association of Pittsburgh and Bruce A. McLeod, M.D. ("Motion to Compel") (Document Nos. 90), and responses thereto (Document Nos. 94, 95), this Court ORDERS as follows:

The Mercy Defendants fail to demonstrate a heightened showing of relevance or need to discover the settlement agreement by and between Plaintiff Joan M. Mavrinac and Defendants Emergency Medicine Association of Pittsburgh ("EMAP") and Bruce A. Macleod, M.D. ("MacLeod") sufficient to overcome the parties' agreement for confidentiality of the settlement.

Doe v. Methacton School District, 164 F.R.D. 175, 176 (E.D. Pa. 1995). The Mercy Defendants' broad assertions that the settlement agreement is relevant to their substantive defenses and necessary for pretrial preparation, including motions, and trial as well, are insufficient to demonstrate the relevance of the settlement agreement. Id. at 176-177. Moreover, having reviewed the settlement agreement in camera, this Court finds that discovery of the settlement agreement would not advance the broadly defined needs articulated by The Mercy Defendants in the Motion to Compel, and therefore, discovery of the settlement agreement is not required at this time.

The Court reserves judgment on the issue of The Mercy Defendants' entitlement to any setoff and/or contribution claims against EMAP and MacLeod, as set forth in The Mercy Defendants' Motion to Compel at paragraph 3 (Document No. 90). The Mercy Defendants may raise this argument at trial of this action.

Accordingly,

The Mercy Defendants' Motion to Compel is DENIED.

Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge

20070703

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.