![]() ![]() With respect to the main underlying issue, Defendants’ argument against the disclosure of personal data is grounded in the Massachusetts Fair Information Practices Act (“FIPA”), Mass. In the end, the court finds in Plaintiffs’ favor with respect to both issues. It is these two overriding issues which the parties ask the court to resolve. The second motion, by its very nature, raises a second issue, i.e., whether the documents sought from the non-defendant agencies are nonetheless within DMA’s control. In many respects, the motions raise one underlying issue, namely, whether the responding parties can be compelled to disclose certain personal data concerning clients of the various agencies. Plaintiffs’ second motion seeks similar documents from non-party agencies that Plaintiffs claim are within DMA’s control. In their first motion, Plaintiffs seek certain documents from each of the named defendants. Plaintiffs’ two motions are somewhat discrete. Finally, Rule 37 allows a discovering party to file a motion to compel the opposing party to comply with the proponent’s properly-filed discovery requests. It also states that “ person not a party to the action may be compelled to produce documents.” Fed.R.Civ.P. For its part, Rule 34 describes the procedures for requesting documents which are “within the scope of and which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.” Fed. Rule 26 explains general provisions governing discovery. Plaintiffs’ motions are brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons which follow, the court will allow both motions. Presently at issue are Plaintiffs’ two motions to compel in which they request production of documents served both upon the defendants - the Division of Medical Assistance (“DMA”), the Executive Office of Health and Human Services and the Executive Office of Administration and Finance - and a number of non-party agencies that are involved, to varying degrees, in the delivery of behavioral health ser *117vices. In essence, Plaintiffs allege violations of several provisions of the federal Medicaid Act, in particular, those provisions which establish the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (“EPSDT”) program. Plaintiffs in this class action have sued various executive officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who administer the state’s Medicaid program. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL (Doc. Jones, Attorney General’s Office, Springfield, MA, for Defendants. Hollander, Office Of the General Counsel, Cambridge, MA, Timothy M. Hammond, Deirdre Roney, Attorney General’s Office, Boston, MA, Bart Q. Laski, Mental Health Legal Ad-visors Committee, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs. Morton, Hale & Dorr, LLP, Boston, MA, Frank J. Burling, Sara Jane Shanahan, Gabrielle E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Northampton, MA, James C. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Cathy E. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |