## Facts

- Butler and three other plaintiffs sued Rigsby for personal injuries from an automobile accident.
- After the accident, plaintiffs received medical treatment from nonparty providers American Medical Group (AMG) and Midtown Health Care (MHC).
- During discovery, Rigsby served deposition notices and document requests on AMG and MHC seeking information aimed at possible impeachment for bias, including:
  - the total number of patients referred to AMG and MHC by plaintiffs’ attorneys over multiple years,
  - reports showing the providers’ net income and the percentage of that income tied to litigation-related work, and
  - lists and records reflecting the providers’ patients connected to litigation.
- AMG and MHC moved for a protective order, arguing the requests were irrelevant, invaded confidentiality (including doctor-patient concerns), and imposed undue burden and expense on nonparties.
- A magistrate judge denied the protective order in large part and ordered production of most of the requested information.
- AMG and MHC sought district-court review of the magistrate judge’s discovery ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 26(b)(1) allows discovery from nonparty treating providers of referral and financial information sought to show possible bias or financial interest connected to plaintiffs’ counsel.
2. Whether the court should limit or condition the discovery to protect nonparties from undue burden or expense, including by shifting some production costs to the requesting party.
3. Whether confidentiality or doctor-patient concerns required a protective order barring production, or could be handled through narrower production methods (e.g., redaction or aggregated reporting).

## Decision

- The district court upheld the magistrate judge’s determination that the requested referral and litigation-income information fell within Rule 26’s liberal discovery scope because it could lead to admissible evidence concerning bias or credibility.
- The court rejected a categorical protective order based on generalized relevance and privilege/confidentiality objections.
- Recognizing the time and expense of gathering multi-year data from nonparties, the court conditioned production by ordering Rigsby to pay one-half of the costs of producing the information.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to the claims or defenses, and information may be discoverable even if it would not be admissible at trial so long as it may lead to admissible evidence.
- Discovery aimed at impeachment is permissible; financial ties, referral patterns, and litigation-related revenue may bear on a treating provider’s possible bias or interest.
- Under Rules 26(b)(2) and 26(c), courts may limit discovery and issue protective orders to prevent undue burden or expense, with special attention to burdens placed on nonparties.
- Rather than prohibiting discovery outright, courts may manage burden through conditions such as cost-shifting and by requiring production in forms that reduce privacy risk (for example, redacting identifying patient information or producing totals and percentages instead of full patient identifiers).

## Conclusion

In Butler v. Rigsby, the court allowed the defendant to obtain discovery from nonparty medical providers about referrals from plaintiffs’ counsel and the providers’ litigation-related income because the information could support impeachment for bias, but the court protected the nonparties from excessive expense by requiring the defendant to pay half the costs of production and by favoring confidentiality-preserving production methods where needed.


Butler v. Rigsby, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4618 (1998)