Spilker v. Medtronic, Inc.

Spilker v. Medtronic, Inc.

Opinion

ORDER

The instant matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motion to quash and/or modify Defendants' subpoena duces tecum to Pitt County Memorial Hospital (d/b/a Vidant Medical Center) ("Vidant") [DE-48], a non-party to the present action. Defendants have responded in opposition [DE-51] to the motion and the matter is ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the motion to quash is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Roberta Spilker ("Plaintiff") filed this action individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Franklin J. Spilker, Jr., ("Decedent"), against Defendants alleging claims of negligence, breach of warranty, unfair trade practices, [*2]  consortium and wrongful death.¹ The complaint was initially filed in state court then removed to federal court on the basis of this court's diversity jurisdiction. The allegations of the complaint arise from Decedent's death, following a cardiac cryoablation, a medical procedure performed by medical personnel at Vidant using a medical device manufactured and marketed by Defendants. [DE-22].

According to Plaintiff's motion, prior to the commencement of the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff and Vidant entered into a confidential settlement agreement releasing Vidant from liability resulting from Decedent's death. [DE-49] at 1. While Defendants are aware of the fact of a settlement between Plaintiff and Vidant, Defendants are not aware of the settlement amount or the particular terms and conditions of the settlement. According to the motion, Plaintiff's settlement agreement with Vidant contains a confidentiality provision stipulating that the settlement sum as well as the terms and conditions [*3]  of the settlement and of Vidant's subsequent release are confidential. [DE-49] at 2. Plaintiff states further that the settlement negotiations between Plaintiff and Vidant occurred primarily through counsels' written correspondence discussing the terms and conditions and the settlement amount, in which Plaintiff's counsel shared his mental impressions and other opinions regarding Plaintiff's pursuit of claims against Defendants. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff states that after settlement had been consummated between Plaintiff and Vidant, Plaintiff's counsel continued to correspond with Vidant in its investigation of the case. Id. at 2.

On May 7, 2013, after the commencement of the instant lawsuit, Defendants served upon Vidant a subpoena duces tecum seeking various documents related to Decedent. [DE-49-1]. Relevant to the instant motion, Defendants seek the following documents from Vidant:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.