*1 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs Dr. Erik Natkin (“Dr. Natkin”) and Dr. Erik Natkin, DO PC's (together, “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel defendants Samaritan Health Services, Inc. (“SHS”), Good Samaritan Hospital Corvallis (“Good Sam”), and Dr. Luis R. Vela, DO (“Dr. Vela”) (together, the “Samaritan Defendants”) to produce additional documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents. The Court accepted written submissions pursuant to its informal discovery dispute resolution procedures, and held a discovery hearing on April 8, 2022. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part, and denies in part, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of additional documents.

Dr. Natkin was an orthopedic surgery resident at Good Sam until the residency program suspended and ultimately terminated Dr. Natkin during his fourth year of residency. Plaintiffs allege that the Samaritan Defendants failed to provide Dr. Natkin with appropriate due process protections or fair procedures prior to his suspension and termination, and further allege breach of his employment contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful termination, intentional interference with contract, and defamation. (See Op. & Order at 35-36, ECF No. 194.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) (listing relevant proportionality factors). Courts construe Rule 26(b)(1) “broadly.” Roberts v. Legacy Meridian Park Hosp., Inc., 299 F.R.D. 669, 671 (D. Or. 2014). When a party fails to provide requested discovery that falls within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1), Rule 37(a)(1) allows the requesting party to “move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Id. (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1)).

I. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Plaintiffs raised several issues with respect to the Samaritan Defendants’ alleged spoliation of documents, but request no specific relief from the Court at this time. Plaintiffs objected to the Samaritan Defendants’ failure to categorize their document productions by request, and the Samaritan Defendants have agreed to provide additional clarity with respect to categorization if Plaintiffs have specific questions. Finally, Plaintiffs objected to the Samaritan Defendants’ failure to produce electronically-stored information (“ESI”) in an acceptable format, and the Samaritan Defendants have agreed to reproduce all previously produced documents in their native format.

II. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 8-9

Plaintiffs requested “[t]he files of any medical students, interns, residents, or fellows who were subjected to any disciplinary action, up to and including termination” and “[t]he files of any medical students, interns, residents, or fellows who resigned.”[1] During the meet and confer, the Samaritan Defendants agreed to produce the files of any other orthopedic surgery residents who were subjected to formal discipline (including those who resigned in lieu of discipline) during Dr. Natkin's tenure.

*2 The Court finds that the discipline of other interns and residents in any SHS osteopathic residency program during the relevant time period is relevant to Dr. Natkin's claim that he was not provided due process and was treated differently than similarly situated individuals, because all of SHS's osteopathic residency programs appear to be governed by the same residency program sponsorship agreement and the American Osteopathic Association's Basic Document for Postdoctoral Training Programs, and all interns and residents appear to be supervised by the same Director of Medical Education and subject to the same employment contract and the same rules in the House Staff Manual.

However, the Court finds that medical students and fellows are not as closely situated to Dr. Natkin and therefore discovery of medical students’ and fellows’ files are only marginally relevant and not proportional to the needs of this case.[2] In any event, the Samaritan Defendants assert they do not maintain medical student files.

With respect to Request for Production No. 9, although the files of individuals who resigned for reasons other than discipline are not necessarily relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court understands that the request is intended to capture those individuals who resigned in lieu of disciplinary action and any such files may not be responsive to Request for Production No. 8. Therefore, the Court finds that files of any interns and residents who resigned in lieu of disciplinary action are also relevant and proportional and must be produced.

For these reasons, the Samaritan Defendants shall produce the files of any interns or residents in any SHS residency program who were subjected to any disciplinary action, up to and including termination, or who resigned in lieu of disciplinary action, from the date Dr. Natkin began his residency through June 30, 2015.[3]

III. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10

Plaintiffs requested “[t]he files of any medical students, interns, residents, or fellows on whom 360 evaluations were taken, including those 360 evaluations.” Defendants objected on the ground of relevance.

The Court finds that discovery of Dr. Natkin's 360 evaluations is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The Court also notes that Plaintiffs will receive 360 evaluations for any other intern or resident subject to disciplinary action or who resigned in lieu of discipline, in response to Request for Production Nos. 8 and 9, which will allow Plaintiffs to compare how the SHS residency programs used 360 evaluations with respect to similarly situated individuals. The Court finds that the files and 360 evaluations of all other medical students, interns, residents, or fellows are only marginally relevant, not proportional to the needs of the case, and need not be produced.

IV. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11

Plaintiffs requested “[a]ny and all rotational evaluations of any and all orthopedic surgery residents from the inception of the program through the present.” During the meet and confer, the Samaritan Defendants agreed to produce the rotational evaluations of the other orthopedic surgery residents during Dr. Natkin's tenure.

The Court finds that the rotational evaluations of other orthopedic surgery residents are relevant to Dr. Natkin's claim that the program treated him differently than similarly-situated individuals, and that an end date of June 30, 2015, is a reasonable and proportional end date restriction for this request. Therefore, the Samaritan Defendants shall produce all rotational evaluations of orthopedic surgery residents from the first day of Dr. Natkin's residency through June 30, 2015.

V. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12

*3 Plaintiffs requested “[a]ny and all documents pertaining to the accreditation or operation of the residency program, including, without limitation:”

During the meet and confer, Plaintiffs assert that the Samaritan Defendants initially agreed to produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 12.a-f, but only those “that it could locate without doing ESI searches and that are from the time period covered by the operative complaint,” but without defining that time period and, in response to Request For Production No. 12.g, produced a complaint by Dr. Natkin, but asserted all the other complaints against the program are irrelevant. The Samaritan Defendants subsequently agreed to search for ESI responsive to Request For Production No. 12, but limited to its email system for the terms “GME,” forms of the word “accredit” using a wildcard, and “residency program,” for the years 2008 through 2010.

In their written submission to the Court and at the discovery hearing, the Samaritan Defendants represented that they are not aware of any relevant agreements or program application materials not already produced or attached to the Second Amended Complaint (12.a-b); they have already produced all onsite inspection reports (12.d); they have already produced all program evaluations facilitated through the American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics (12.e-f); and they are unaware of any complaints not already produced (12.g). The Court cannot compel the Samaritan Defendants to produce documents they claim to have already produced or they do not have, and Plaintiffs may question the Samaritan Defendants about any missing documents during their depositions.

*4 With respect to Request for Production 12.c, the Samaritan Defendants object on relevance grounds to producing the curricula vitae (“CV”) of every Director of Medical Education, Program Director, and faculty member, and they have already produced the CV of Dr. Vela, the alleged “bad actor” here. The Court finds that only the qualifications of those physicians involved in Dr. Natkin's termination are relevant to his allegations, and therefore the Samaritan Defendants shall produce the CVs for the members of the committees involved in Dr. Natkin's termination if those CVs are in their possession, custody, or control, but need not produce the CVs for every Director of Medical Education, Program Director, and faculty member.

With respect to Request for Production 12.e-f, the Court agrees that every orthopedic resident's annual evaluation of the program during Dr. Natkin's tenure are responsive, relevant, and proportional, and therefore the Samaritan Defendants shall produce any such annual evaluations in their possession, custody, or control from the first date of Dr. Natkin's residency through June 30, 2015.

Finally, the Samaritan Defendants shall clarify for Plaintiffs how they defined “time period covered by the operative complaint” when they conducted their search for responsive documents, and should clarify if their failure to produce documents in response to any category was the result of their relevance objection or because their searches did not locate any responsive documents.

VI. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17

Plaintiffs requested “Dr. Richard Stanley, DO's file with SHS, including any and all resident evaluations of Dr. Stanley.” During the meet and confer, the Samaritan Defendants agreed to produce the parts of Dr. Stanley's file regarding interactions with Dr. Natkin, but no such responsive documents exist and therefore the Samaritan Defendants did not produce any documents in response to Request For Production No. 17.

Dr. Natkin was terminated for allegedly colluding with another doctor to highlight quality issues with two of Dr. Stanley's cases at a fracture conference. Dr. Natkin denies colluding with the other doctor and denies any intent to disrespect Dr. Stanley. The Court agrees with the Samaritan Defendants that neither Dr. Stanley's skill nor his professionalism have any bearing on the merits of Dr. Natkin's claims in this case, especially in light of Dr. Natkin's denial that he intended to criticize Dr. Stanley. Thus, the Court finds that discovery of Dr. Stanley's file is not relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case.

VII. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18

Plaintiffs requested “Dr. Vela's file with SHS, including any and all resident evaluations of Dr. Vela.” During the meet and confer, the Samaritan Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents, but Plaintiffs believe that evaluations are missing from the production. Plaintiffs also object to the redaction of Dr. Vela's social security number and date of birth from the responsive documents. At the discovery hearing, the Samaritan Defendants confirmed that they have produced the entirety of Dr. Vela's file, including any resident evaluations, but confirmed after the hearing that Dr. Vela continues to object to the disclosure of his social security number and date of birth.

Plaintiffs argue that the discovery of a party's background information such as dates of birth and social security numbers is routine, citing an out-of-district case, Gober v. City of Leesburg, 197 F.R.D. 519, 521 n.2 (M.D. Fla. 2000). However, at least one court has recognized that “[a]ny suggestion that social security numbers are routinely discoverable as ‘background information,’ is no longer correct, if indeed it ever was” because “[w]hatever might have been said when Gober was decided, the scope of discovery authorized by Rule 26 (without a court order) has more recently been narrowed, and the emergence of identity theft as [a] major problem has led to heightened awareness of the need to deal with social security numbers with greater care.” Bacchus v. Benson, No. 4:07cv186-RH/WCS, 2007 WL 9736176, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2007) (denying motion to compel disclosure of, inter alia, social security numbers); see also Fowler-Washington v. City of New York, No. 19-CV-6590(KAM)(JO), 2020 WL 5893817, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2020) (allowing redaction of the defendants’ social security numbers and dates of birth from discovery, and noting that “Plaintiff has not identified how social security numbers, birth dates, home addresses, or other personal information is relevant to his case, or would lead to the discovery of information relevant to any claims or defenses”).

*5 Dr. Vela's social security number and date of birth, on their face, are clearly not relevant to any claim or defense in this case. Rather, Plaintiffs seek to use Dr. Vela's personal identifying information to conduct a background check with the hope that it will lead to the discovery of impeachment evidence. Although the disclosure of Dr. Vela's personal identifying information might lead to the discovery of impeachment evidence, long gone is Rule 26’s allowance of discovery that is not particularly relevant but is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 26 advisory committee's note to 2015 amendments (noting that the 2015 amendments to Rule 26 deleted the phrase “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” because the “phrase has been used by some, incorrectly, to define the scope of discovery” and the “use of the phrase to define the scope of discovery ‘might swallow any other limitation on the scope of discovery’ ” (quoting advisory committee's note to 2000 amendments)). The Court finds that Dr. Vela's personal identifying information is not relevant to any claims or defenses in this case and need not be disclosed.

The Court acknowledges that other courts have authorized the disclosure of personal identifying information to allow a party to investigate possible impeachment evidence. Even if compelled disclosure may be appropriate in some cases, the Court must balance Plaintiffs’ need for the information against Dr. Vela's right to privacy. See Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (noting that “[f]ederal courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests” and “[r]esolution of a privacy objection ... requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted”) (citations omitted). Here, the Samaritan Defendants have already agreed to produce Dr. Vela's employment file in its entirety, which should include any disciplinary action or negative evaluations relating to Dr. Vela's employment as relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs will also have the opportunity to depose Dr. Vela. Plaintiffs have not asserted any factual basis to believe that Dr. Vela has a criminal record or that he has engaged in any specific impeachable conduct outside of his employment, and any background investigation would reveal, at best, impeachment evidence on collateral matters. See Fowler-Washington, 2020 WL 5893817, at *4 (“[T]here is no right in civil litigation, even under the broad discovery obligations imposed by Rule 26, to gain access to private information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, ... or names of family members, that is not otherwise relevant to [a defendant's] performance on the job”).

On the other hand, compelling Dr. Vela to disclose his social security number and date of birth for the purpose of a background check into collateral matters is an invasion of his privacy, especially where Plaintiffs would necessarily need to share the information with investigators retained to conduct the background investigation as well as various background check websites or other entities. In current times, there are no guarantees that Dr. Vela's personal information will be protected once released to third parties, especially if entered online, and this Court does not support a blanket rule requiring all parties in litigation to disclose their personal information and assume that risk.

The Court finds that at this stage of the litigation, Dr. Vela's right to privacy outweighs Plaintiffs’ need to conduct a background check for information not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the disclosure of Dr. Vela's social security number and date of birth, with leave to renew if this case proceeds to trial and upon a showing that Plaintiffs are unable to conduct an adequate background investigation without the use of Dr. Vela's social security number and date of birth.

VIII. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 19-21

Plaintiffs requested production of Dr. Vela's file as an intern, resident, and fellow. The Samaritan Defendants objected on the ground that Dr. Vela's experience as a trainee was too remote in time to the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this action to be relevant. The Court agrees that any such discovery is only marginally relevant and is not proportional to the needs of the case.

*6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their First Request for Production of Documents, and compels the Samaritan Defendants to produce the above-discussed documents to Plaintiffs within twenty-one days. The Court will address the Samaritan Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to their discovery requests from Plaintiffs in a separate order.

DATED this 11th day of May, 2022.