Can a party be compelled to execute a medical records authorization? I discussed it once and the split between local state and federal courts. Apparently there is also a split within the state courts.
I do not have a case number handy, but my experience in Las Vegas based state courts has been that a party who has put their medical condition at issue may be compelled to execute a medical records authorization through a Rule 34 request. This is the minority position but the interpretation seems more consistent with the overarching purpose of Rule 1.
A reader sent to me an order on this topic from the Reno courts that concluded differently and adopted the majority position discussed in my post. I would call this a “circuit split” and think it may be an appropriate issue for a writ.
I disagree with the order as it would appear to interpret Rule 34 in a manner that actually increases the cost of litigation, contravening Rule 1. As a practice consideration, what is more difficult for that party’s counsel? Getting the client to sign 10 pieces of paper or opposing a motion and then going to court to argue it?