Judge James Matthews

Read Full-Text Decision

Plaintiff provider moved for an order to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued to its non-party bank by defendant insurer in this action by plaintiff to recover payment for medical services rendered to its assignor post-car accident. The subpoena, served by fax, and received and accepted by the bank, required production of bank records for plaintiff for 2012 through present. Plaintiff sought a protective order, and objected to service by fax as improperly served—which the court denied as bank accepted service without objection. Plaintiff argued the subpoena was improperly utilized as a fishing expedition for discovery. Insurer submitted an affidavit from an employee of the Medical Fraud Division whose factual findings of an investigative report included patterns notoriously indicative of fraudulent situations involving no-fault claims. The court found insurer complied with notice requirements of CPLR 3101(a)(4), stating it showed its discovery demands were material and necessary, while provider failed to show discovery was irrelevant to the action. It ruled insurer was entitled to financial records to ascertain if provider was ineligible to recover assigned no-fault benefits. It denied provider’s motion to quash the subpoena, that remained valid and enforceable by insurer.