The decision in Jessica Walters v. Stephen L. Murray and Falcon Marketing, LLC v. Murray resolves companion appeals arising from a discovery dispute in a car accident case where plaintiff Sebrina Michael sought damages from defendants including Ortho Sport & Spine Physicians, LLC.
Defendants served Falcon Marketing, LLC, a marketing agency that performed services for Ortho Sport, with a subpoena for the deposition of a company representative and document production. They also subpoenaed Walters, Falcon’s National Sales Director.
The defendants sought information about referrals to Ortho Sport by Michael’s attorneys, the efforts of Ortho Sport to market and solicit referrals from law firms, and the corporate structure of Falcon.
Relying on its 2024 decision in Medernix v. Snowden, the defendants asserted that attorney referral information was discoverable because it was relevant to the bias, intent, and motive of the Ortho Sport physicians who treated Michael.
Falcon and Walters filed a joint motion to quash, contending the requests sought irrelevant information and were overly broad. They argued that to the extent discovery was relevant, the proper source was Ortho Sport, not a non-party marketing company.
The trial court denied the motion to quash in part, finding that referral information could show physician bias and was reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. It granted a protective order limiting the distribution of Falcon’s marketing materials, though it allowed defendants to submit materials for in-camera inspection in other cases.
On appeal, Falcon argued that precedent allowing discovery of referral information from medical providers or funding companies did not extend to a third-party marketing vendor at arm’s length.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that Medernix and its 2025 successor case, Omni Healthcare v. Stacy Young Excavation, focused on the relevancy of the information sought, not the identity of the holder.
“Nothing in Medernix or Omni Healthcare limited discovery of information pertaining to a medical provider’s potential bias to the medical providers themselves or to medical funding companies,” Presiding Judge Barnes wrote for the panel.
The court pointed to defendants’ evidence, including LinkedIn profiles, suggesting Falcon and Ortho Sport share employees and general counsel, and that Falcon collects and manages referral data for Ortho Sport.
“While Falcon disputes the defendants’ allegations regarding its relationship with Ortho Sport, the defendants are entitled to obtain discovery to flesh out the scope and nature of that relationship,” Barnes wrote.
The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash regarding deposition topics on Falcon’s corporate structure, software ownership, and relationships with other entities.
However, the court vacated the trial court’s order denying the motion to quash deposition topic no. 29, which sought information on “average acceptance rates of the involved providers in satisfaction of their bills.”
The court held that while billing information for other patients treated facility during the same time period is relevant to the reasonableness of charges, topic no. 29 was not limited to that scope.
The case is remanded for the trial court to narrow the scope of deposition topic no. 29 consistent with Medernix and Omni Healthcare.
The court also affirmed the denial of Walters’ motion to quash her deposition, rejecting her argument that the precedent did not extend to her as a Falcon employee.
Both Falcon and Walters waived arguments challenging the protective order’s exclusion of deposition testimony and its in-camera inspection carve-out because they failed to object court hearing.
The panel included Presiding Judge Barnes, and Judges Markle and Hodges.