As previously discussed, the New Rules of Court have limited the scope of pre-trial document production and further have introduced the concept of ‘proportionality‘ in deciding what types of documents need to be disclosed in litigation. The law continues to develop with respect to the application of these changes and recently the BC Supreme Court released reasons for judgement addressing two classes of documents which are often requested in BC personal injury lawsuits; MSP and Pharmanet Printouts.
In the recent case (Anderson v. Kauhane and Roome) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 BC motor vehicle collision. She sued for damages. In the course of the lawsuit the Defendant requested her MSP and Pharmanet printouts (government documents which keep track of doctors visits and prescption drug purchases). These documents were routinely produced in injury lawsuits under the former Supreme Court Rules.
The Plaintiff opposed arguing that the narrower scope of the New Civil Rules no longer made such documents automatically producible. Master Baker agreed and dismissed the Defence application for production. In doing so the Court considered disclosure of these documents both under that narrower ‘material fact’ test in Rule 7-1(1)(a) and the broader Peruvian Guano type disclosure under rule 7-1(11). In dismissing the application Master Baker provided the following useful reasons:
The question is: do the documents in dispute, ie, MSP and Pharmanet, come withing the terms of either Rule 7-1(1)(a), ie, documents that can be used by a party of record to prove or disprove a material fact or that will be referred to at trial or, if not, do they come under category 7-1(11), generally, in the vernacular, referred to as the Guano documents…There is no question that there is a higher duty on a party requesting documents under the second category…that in addition to requesting, they must explain and satisfy either the party being demanded or the court, if an order is sought, with an explanation “with reasonable specificity that indicates the reason why such additional documents or classes of documents should be disclosed”, and again, there is no doubt that the new Rules have limited the obligation for production in the first instance to the first category that I have described and has reduced or lessened the obligation for production in general…
The question today is, would these documents prove a material fact if available? I think not….I am not satisfied that at this juncture they can or will prove a material fact…
I acknowledge that the defence has pleaded – and I will say this – in what I think are now becoming boilerplate pleadings, has pleaded pre-existing conditions…I am not satisfied that, by simple pleading, that somehow opens up the matter to the higher standard represented by 7-1(11). The obligation is still on the defendant to make that case, as far as I am concerned, and that moves me to the second aspect of this, has a case been made under 7-1(11)?
Has there been, in other words, reasonable specificity indicating why the additional documents or classes of documents should be disclosed? I think not….It seems, in the circumstances, disproportionate to me to give an open-ended order that all Pharmanet records, for example, some seven years, or records with Medical Services Plan going back to January 1, 2004, are proportionate to the claim as it is expressed and understood at this point. So the application is dismissed.
As far as I am aware this recent case is unpublished but, as always, I am happy to provide a copy of the reasons to anyone who contacts me to request one.