SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
SHARON L. OVINGTON, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Upon review of the record concerning the matters addressed in the Order previously docketed on January 28, 2015 (Doc. #171), it has become apparent that the previous Order did not specifically address some of the documents at issue — namely, the documents Plaintiffs designated as "withheld" in their Log of Redacted and Withheld Documents. (Doc. #154, PageID at 3272-76). This Supplemental Order is therefore needed to address the Court's present in camera review of those withheld documents. The Court's previous Order (Doc. #171) is incorporated by reference herein.
Ms. Egler
Beginning with the medical records of Plaintiff Shalonda Egler, the first withheld document contains information outside the pertinent time period. It is, therefore, too remote in time to be relevant to the subject matter of her case, and if produced, would not likely lead to admissible evidence. Consequently, Defendants are not entitled to production of the document Plaintiffs have bates stamped MR_(SE)_011.
The other document, although within the pertinent time period, contains information so personal to Ms. Egler it must remain confidential to protect her privacy interests. Consequently, Defendants are not entitled to production of bates stamped MR_(SE)_021.
Mr. Stauter
Three documents Plaintiffs have withheld contain information about Plaintiff Douglas Stauter on dates outside the pertinent time period. The information is, therefore, too remote in time to be relevant to the subject matter of his case, and if produced, would not likely lead to admissible evidence. Consequently, Defendants are not entitled to production of the documents Plaintiffs have bates stamped as MR_(DS)_029, 030, 039.
One document contains information within the pertinent time period but the information does not relate to Mr. Stauter's COPD in July 2010 and does not shed light on whether he sought FMLA leave in July 2010 due to a non-serious medical condition or no medical condition at all. As a result, Defendants are not entitled to production of MR_(DS)_031.
Three documents concern Mr. Stauter's health six days after his date of certification and might shed light on whether or not he sought FMLA leave due to a non-serious medical condition. Plaintiffs shall therefore disclose to Defendants MR_(DS)_040, 041, and 042.
Ms. Aydelott
Many documents Plaintiffs have withheld contain information about Plaintiff Della Aydelott on dates outside the pertinent time period. The information is, therefore, too remote in time to be relevant to the subject matter of her case and, if produced, would not likely lead to admissible evidence. Additionally, Ms. Aydelott's privacy interests in maintaining at least some information in these documents supports Plaintiffs' decision to withhold these documents. Consequently, Defendants are not entitled to production of the documents Plaintiffs have bates stamped as MR_(DA)_082-131, 135-153, 158, 159, 161-163, 169-173, 181, 188-198.
Some withheld documents contain information during the pertinent time period that relates to the reason she sought FMLA leave in October 2010 or to the issue of whether she sought FMLA leave due to a non-serious medical condition or no medical condition at all. Ms. Aydelott's privacy interests in these records do not trump the relevance of the information under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiffs shall therefore disclose to Defendants MR_(DA)_132, 133, 134, 154, 155, 156, 157.
Mr. Gray
The first document Plaintiffs have withheld concerning Plaintiff Brian Gray was done so on the ground that it "[w]holly concerns medical condition unrelated to FMLA." (Doc. #154, PageID at 3274). This document, however, is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel to a medical provider seeking Mr. Gray's medical records. It contains no information about Mr. Gray's health or medical conditions. Consequently, the reason Plaintiffs advance for withholding the document lacks merit. The document also does not disclose information related to Mr. Gray's privacy interests. Plaintiffs shall therefore produce to Defendants MR_(BG)_063.
Two documents Plaintiffs have withheld contain information about Mr. Gray on dates outside the pertinent time period. The information, therefore, is too remote in time to be relevant to the subject matter of his case and, if produced, would not likely lead to admissible evidence. Additionally, Mr. Gray's privacy interests in maintaining at least some information in these documents supports Plaintiffs' decision to withhold these documents. Consequently, Defendants are not entitled to production of the documents Plaintiffs have bates stamped MR_(BG)_172, 177.
Some withheld documents contain information during the pertinent time period that relates to the reason Mr. Gray sought FMLA leave or to the issue of whether he sought FMLA leave due to a non-serious medical condition or no medical condition at all. His privacy interests in these records do not trump the relevance of the information under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiffs shall therefore produce to Defendants MR_(BG)_188, 197-200, 204-212.
Two withheld documents contain information within the pertinent time period but the information is so personal to Mr. Gray that it must remain confidential to protect his privacy interests. Consequently, Defendants are not entitled to production of the withheld documents bates stamped MR_(BG)_170, 171.
There remains a final matter that needs clarification: the differences between two sets of different documents that Plaintiffs have identified under the same bates-stamped MR_(BG)_170, 171, 172, and 173. Although identified with these bates-stamped numbers, the unredacted versions of these documents do not correspond with the redacted versions. Compare Doc. #163, PageID at 3504-07 with Doc. #166, PageID at 4318-21. According to Plaintiffs' privilege log, they have withheld MR_(BG)_170, 171, and 172 because each document "[w]holly concerns medical condition unrelated to FMLA"; Plaintiffs have redacted MR_(BG)_173 because it "[c]oncerns medical condition unrelated to FMLA." (Doc. #154, PageID at 3275).
The Court's previously filed Order directed the parties to meet and confer about the differences between the redacted and unredacted versions of MR_(BG)_170-173. Yet, in light of the following, there is no need for the parties to meet and confer about these documents.
Unredacted Documents (Doc. #163): MR_(BG)_170, 171, 172, and 1731
For the reasons stated previously in this Supplemental Order, the unredacted versions of MR_(BG)_170, 171, and 172 need not be produced. (Doc. #163, PageID at 3504-06). As to unredacted MR_(BG)_173, this document need not be produced because the information it contains concerns matters outside Mr. Gray's pertinent time period. (Doc. #163, PageID at 3507).
Redacted Documents (Doc. #166): MR_(BG)_170, 171, 172, and 1732
As to Plaintiffs' redacted documents concerning Mr. Gray — again, MR_(BG)_170, 171, 172, and 173 — Plaintiffs do not need to produce them because the information they contain concerns matters outside Mr. Gray's pertinent time period.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
The Order docketed on January 28, 2015 (Doc. #170) is hereby supplemented as set forth in this Supplemental Order.
