Following an in camera inspection pursuant to the court’s October 2, 2018 order, and upon further consideration of the parties’ respective arguments regarding the production of the audit trails/metadata of Mrs. Lam’s medical records, it is hereby ordered that defendants shall produce the metadata report titled “Event Archive Record Content” on or before December 14, 2018.CPLR §3101 mandates “full disclosure of all matters that are material and necessary.” Parties to an action are entitled to reasonable discovery “of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” (Fell V. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of New York at Columbia-Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 98 A.D.2d 624, 625 [1st Dept. 1983]). Courts in New York generally favor liberal discovery (see, AQ Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Levine, 138 A.D.3d 635, 636 [1st Dept. 2016] [discovery should be liberal]; Greco v. Wellington Leasing Ltd. P’ship, 144 A.D.3d 981, 982 [2d Dept. 2016] ["Courts are to interpret discovery requests liberally in favor of disclosure."]; Twenty Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Hunter Ambulance Inc., 226 A.D.2d 175, 175 [1st Dept. 1996] ["Liberal discovery is favored and pretrial disclosure extends not only to proof that is admissible but also to matters that may lead to the disclosure of admissible proof."]).Here, the metadata report spans from August 1, 2016 to August 10, 2016, and delineates the date, time, procedure, status of the procedure, and provider who treated Mrs. Lam during her hospitalization at Harlem Hospital on August 1, 2016. Upon an inspection of the report, plaintiffs correctly argue that the entries contained therein may be material and germane to the issue of defendants’ alleged failure to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Lam (see, Gilbert v. Highland Hosp., 52 Misc. 3d 555, 558 [N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016] [granting plaintiff's motion to compel production of the audit trail in a case involving an alleged failure to diagnose a medical condition that subsequently resulted in decedent's death, where the audit trail will account for the attending physician's accessing and viewing decedent's electronic records and will allow plaintiff to quantify the level of involvement of the attending physician with decedent's care while she was in the emergency department]).To the extent that the metadata report is duplicative of medical records already provided by defendants, that concern is mitigated by the brevity of the report itself as it consists of only 25 pages and does not detail the specific results or findings of any particular test or procedure. Further, an examination of the entries in the report does not reveal any notes, impressions, or opinions of defense counsel that would implicate an attorney work product privilege or any other attorney confidentiality privilege. Finally, Dr. Clark’s testimony regarding his treatment of Mrs. Lam during her hospitalization does not negate plaintiffs’ entitlement to Mrs. Lam’s medical records as plaintiffs are not obligated to accept Dr. Clark’s recollection of the events leading up to Mrs. Lam’s death as true, accurate, or full in scope. Rather, plaintiffs are entitled to their own review and interpretation of Mrs. Lam’s complete medical data, especially in light of Dr. Clark’s testimony.Accordingly, it is herebyORDERED that defendants are directed to produce the metadata report titled “Event Archive Record Content” on or before December 14, 2018; and it is furtherORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for their previously scheduled compliance conference on December 18, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. at 111 Centre Street (Part 10), New York, NY 10013.Dated: November 27, 2018
