Babakhanov v. Ahuja

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Kishore Ahuja, M.D., and Rita Ahuja, M.D., engaged in systemic waste, fraud, and abuse in operating Perry Avenue Family Medical, Inc. The complaint alleged that the practice was sold to the plaintiffs in a transaction that closed on April 29, 2022. The practice’s billing practices were being reviewed by the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General. The plaintiffs asserted claims including indemnification under a stock purchase agreement, breach of express warranty, fraudulent inducement, and faithless servant.

Discovery dispute

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) to compel production of electronic medical records in the records’ native form. The plaintiffs had produced the pertinent patient files as PDF documents. The defendants sought access to the native electronic medical-record system to examine its templates, functions, dropdown menus, and buttons; identify people who prepared, reviewed, viewed, or documented entries; determine whether other relevant records existed; review medication records and histories; and obtain records for the patients covered by the complaint. They also sought materials connected to the state review and a self-disclosure to the New York State Office of the Inspector General.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had not requested native-format production and that the PDFs were a reasonably usable form. They said the records were produced in the form ordinarily provided to insurance carriers and the state agencies. They also stated that the electronic records identified the treating and signing provider, included other records and attachments for the subject patients, contained the full medication records and histories, and included the files provided to the Office of the Inspector General in the format supplied to that office.

Legal standard

Rule 34(b)(2)(E) generally requires electronically stored information to be produced as kept in the usual course of business or in a reasonably usable form when the request does not specify a production format. A party does not have to produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. The rule does not permit a party to convert records into a form that makes them more difficult or burdensome to use, but courts may deny requests for additional information, including metadata, when its potential value is outweighed by the cost and burden of production.

Ruling

The court denied the motion to compel. It found that the plaintiffs had shown that the information was produced in an ordinary business form and a reasonably usable form, and that the PDFs contained the information relevant to the litigation. The defendants had not identified a non-speculative reason why the lack of native-format production would make it more difficult or burdensome to defend against the claims. The court noted that the PDFs showed who signed the electronic health records and that a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. It also stated that the defendants knew how the practice kept its records and should have requested native-format production at the outset. Requiring the plaintiffs to reproduce the records in native form would impose an undue burden that exceeded the format’s likely value or relevance.