IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Marilix Villanueva Pérez; Luis

Angel Román Peña; and The Civil No. 24-1531 (GMM) Conjugal Partnership

constituted between them,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Caribbean Electrophysiology Services Inc., et al,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is non-party Hospital Damas, Inc.’s (“Hospital Damas”) Special Appearance by Hospital Damas, Inc., Requesting to Quash Subpoena for Production of Documents and Information According to F.R.C.P. 45 (“Motion to Quash”) at Docket No. 78). After reviewing the filings, the Motion to Quash is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is a medical malpractice case. On November 13, 2024, Plaintiffs, Marilix Villanueva Pérez (“Mrs. Villanueva”) and Luis Angel Roman Peña, and the conjugal partnership constituted between them (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a Complaint against Caribbean Electrophysiology Services Inc.1, Dr. Helder Hernández- Rivera (“Dr. Hernández”) and Dr. Jennifer Vargas-Santos (“Dr. Vargas”) (collectively “Defendants”). (Docket No. 1). Therein, pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiffs sued Defendants for medical malpractice under the Puerto Rico Civil Code. In sum, Mrs. Villanueva, Mrs. Maribel Pérez-Santiago’s (“Mrs. Pérez”) daughter,

alleges that Dr. Hernández and Dr. Vargas are liable as their acts and/or omissions regarding the care of Mrs. Pérez were the proximate cause of her pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and ultimate death. See generally (id.). On January 27, the Defendants answered the Complaint. (Docket Nos. 13-15). On February 4, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint proposed case management order. (Docket No. 16). On February 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Court Intervention Regarding Discovery Dispute questioning, for the first time, the timing and sequence of expert disclosures and the timing and sequence of the depositions. (Docket No. 19). Due to

the ongoing dispute regarding discovery plan and the parties’ inability to file a joint proposed case management order, as previously required, on February 20, 2025, the Court issued its Case Management Order. (Docket No. 22).

1 On February 21, 2025, Partial Judgment dismissing the Complaint without prejudice was entered as to this defendant. After various discovery disputes regarding deposition schedules and expert reports, on October 21, 2025, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order which amended the Case Management Order. (Docket No. 88). Therein, the Court emphasized that expert reports, reply reports, and supplements to expert reports must be disclosed to the parties no later than October 28, 2025, which is two months

before the discovery cutoff date set for December 28, 2025. Prior to this order, non-party Hospital Damas filed its Motion to Quash on October 7, 2025. (Docket No. 78). Therein, Hospital Damas asserts that Plaintiffs served them with a subpoena on September 23, 2025, requesting the production of documents and information by October 15, 2025. (Id. at 1). The subpoena contains an Exhibit A, which includes twenty items of requested information and documents. (Id. at 5-6). Mainly, Hospital Damas claims that Plaintiffs are using the subpoena to obtain, in this case —in which it is not a party the same information Plaintiffs have failed to obtain from Hospital Damas in a parallel case filed in the Puerto

Rico state court captioned Civil No. PO2024CV03266 (“Puerto Rico State Court”), in which they are a party. (Id. at 7). According to Hospital Damas, the subpoena causes undue burden because Plaintiffs are requesting through a subpoena the same information they requested in the Puerto Rico State Court via interrogatories, in a case with basically the same allegations of negligence as filed in this Court. (Id.). This, they posit, is being requested to use the information against Hospital Damas in the pending state court litigation. (Id. at 1-4). Hospital Damas contends that the subpoena shall be quashed because of undue burden because “Plaintiffs are coordinating the depositions [of] the expert and physician defendants, which are pertinent to the case at [the] local Court, with no participation

from Hospital Damas, Inc[’s] legal representation, under the shield that Hospital Damas, Inc is not a party in this captioned case.” (Id. at 9). Moreover, Hospital Damas asserts that the information requested through Exhibit A of the subpoena, which entails patient’s complete medical records, was provided to Plaintiffs in 2023. (Id. at 7). In addition, Hospital Damas argues that items 11 and 14 of the Exhibit A of the subpoena request privileged or confidential information regarding employees which should be barred. (Id. at 8). Also, they contend that items 11 and 12 call for a periodical evaluation of defendant physicians, which is not discoverable

under Puerto Rico Law, Regulation 9184 of July 1, 2020, Chapter XIV. (Id.) Furthermore, Hospital Damas asserts that Plaintiffs are requesting information that could be obtained by defendant physicians in this case. (Id. at 10). They also argue that Plaintiffs are requesting the information and documents in less than the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) On October 22, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Hospital Damas, Inc.’s Special Appearance and Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Documents and Information. (Docket No. 90). Plaintiffs argue that, as alleged in their Complaint, this medical malpractice and wrongful death action arises from the care provided to Ms. Pérez at Hospital Damas

between June 14 and June 22, 2022. (Id. at 2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that since the medical care was provided within the facilities of Hospital Damas, a subpoena was issued to said institution to obtain information relevant to the medical treatment provided, including: “1) the patient’s medical record, 2) informed consent documentation, 3) institutional policies, 4) protocols, and 5) credentialing materials related to co- defendants” Dr. Hernández and Dr. Vargas. (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiffs posit that requested information is “extremely relevant to assess the circumstances of Ms. Pérez’s care, the supervision and coordination of the treating physicians, and the hospital’s

standards and procedures applicable at the time of the events,” because these are the standards and procedures that the defendant physicians were required to follow during the medical care of Ms. Pérez. (Id. at 3). Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that Hospital Damas has not established specific facts or evidence regarding burden, cost, or privilege that can constitute undue burden. (Id. at 3-4). Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that the pendency of other cases does not limit Plaintiffs’ right to obtain relevant information to this action. (Id. at 4). Plaintiffs also posit that Hospital Damas equally fails to establish that the information requested is confidential or privileged. (Id. at 5-6). On November 11, 2025, Hospital Damas filed a Special

Appearance by Hospital Damas, Inc in Response to Plaintiffs Motion at Docket No. 92 Requesting Determination on Hospital Damas, Inc.’s Special Appearance and Motion to Quash Subpoena. (Docket No. 94). Hospital Damas submits that information and documentation related to the institutional protocols and credentialing is only pertinent to the complaint in the case at Puerto Rico State Court, not to the federal case in the instant matter. (Id. at 2-4). II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS A. Relevant Legal Standards for Discovery District courts have “broad discretion in pretrial management matters,” including discovery matters. Curet-Velászquez v. ACEMLA

de Puerto Rico, Inc.,

(1st Cir. 2011); see also Neth. Ins. Co. v. HP, Inc., No. 18-CV-12136-DLC,

, at *2 (D. Mass. Dec. 30, 2022); Faigin v. Kelly,

(1st Cir. 1999) (“A district court’s case-management powers apply with particular force to the regulation of discovery and the reconciliation of discovery disputes.”). To that extent, “district courts must be afforded wide latitude in the management of discovery.” Danny B. ex rel. Elliott v. Raimondo,

(1st Cir. 2015). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (“Rule 26”) decrees that:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non- privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). What is “relevant” encompasses “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,

(1978). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits a party to obtain discovery that is “‘relevant to any party’s claim or defense.’” Gardner v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc.,

, 132 (D. Mass. 2023) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). “It is well settled that: [t]he party resisting production bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden. . . . [T]he ‘mere statement by a party that the interrogatory [or request for production] was ‘overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant’ is not adequate to voice a successful objection.” Aponte-Navedo v. Nalco Chem. Co.,

(D.P.R. 2010) (quoting Sánchez-Medina v. UNICCO Serv. Co.,

(D.P.R. 2009)). Hence, courts must limit discovery if they determine that “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (emphasis added); see also Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites, Inc.,

(1st Cir. 2001); P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Clow Corp.,

(D.P.R. 1985).

B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 A party who seeks discovery from a nonparty must serve the nonparty with a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (“Rule 45”). See Vázquez-Fernández v. Cambridge Coll., Inc.,

(D.P.R. 2010). “A Rule 45 subpoena is subject to the scope of discoverable information set forth in [Rule 26(b)(1)].” P.R.

Ports Auth. v. P/V Norwegian Epic, No. 21-cv-1056 (RAM),

, at *2 (D.P.R. July 12, 2022) (citing Smith v. Turbocombustor Tech., Inc.,

, 176 (D. Mass. 2021). Despite the broad scope of Rule 26, Rule 45(d)(3) sets forth circumstances under which district courts must or may on timely motion from a party or non-party quash or modify a subpoena. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 25-cv-11552 (ADB),

, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 12, 2025). One of the grounds that requires district courts to quash a subpoena if it “subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). When analyzing “motions to quash . . . , ‘courts weigh the need of the party seeking discovery against any undue hardships created by permitting it.’” Green v. Cosby,

(D. Mass.

2015) (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary,

, 363–64 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)). Factors germane to that analysis are “relevance, the requesting party’s need, the breadth of the request, and the burden imposed.”

(quoting Linsday v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 10- mc-00441,

, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2011)). “The party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing that the subpoena imposes an undue burden, and it ‘cannot rely on a mere assertion that compliance would be burdensome and onerous without showing the manner and extent of the burden and the injurious consequences of insisting upon compliance.’” In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 13-mdl-02419,

, at *6 (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2013) (quoting Sterling Merch., Inc. v. Nestle, S.A., No. 06-cv-01015,

, at *2 (D.P.R. Apr. 15, 2008)). Moreover, courts have recognized that if “material sought by subpoena is readily available” to a party in the action, then “obtaining it through subpoena on a nonparty often will create an undue burden.”

at *7 (quoting Gray v. Town of Easton, No. 3:12-cv-00166,

, at *3 (D. Conn. May 29, 2013)). “‘The mere availability of the documents from another source, however, does not preclude a subpoena directed to a nonparty if the party serving the subpoena can show that it is more expeditious to obtain the documents from a witness.’”

Alternatively, “the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena . . . [order] production under specified

conditions if the serving party: (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(C)(i). Lastly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) provides that “[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . [and] [t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). A movant has the burden of demonstrating that good cause exists for the issuance of the protective order. See Public Citizen v. Liggett Grp., Inc.,

(1st Cir. 1988). To meet this burden, the movant must provide the Court with “a particular and specific demonstration of fact” and not merely “stereotyped and conclusory statements.” Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. BDO USA, L.L.P.,

(5th Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Terra Int’l,

(5th Cir. 1998)); see also González Berrios v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc., No. 18-cv-1146 (RAM),

at *2 (D.P.R. Sept. 30, 2019).

III. ANALYSIS The subpoena in controversy includes twenty items which will be reviewed by the Court in turn. See (Docket No 78-1).

A. Request for Medical Records Request for Production No. 1 Provide a complete copy of the medical record of patient Maribel Pérez Santiago at Hospital Damas, Inc., including but not limited to admission records, physicians’ notes, nursing notes, orders, operative reports, anesthesia records, laboratory and diagnostic test results, imaging studies, medication administration records, progress notes, discharge summary, and any other documentation generated in connection with the care and treatment provided to her at said institution.

Request for Production No. 16 Produce any and all documents reflecting informed consent obtained from patient Maribel Pérez Santiago in connection with the catheter ablation procedure performed at Hospital Damas, Inc., on June 15, 2022, including signed consent forms, explanatory materials provided, and records of any alternatives to treatment discussed with the patient.

As to these requests, Hospital Damas argues that Ms. Pérez’s complete, certified, and numbered medical records were provided to Plaintiffs since 2023. (Docket No. 78 at 7). Notwithstanding, as per their allegations, these medical records were apparently provided as part of litigation before the Puerto Rico State Court. Here, Plaintiffs have established that the medical records held by Hospital Damas are relevant, as the medical malpractice claims before this Court implicate the medical care that was provided to

Ms. Pérez by the defendant physicians Dr. Hernández and Dr. Vargas at Hospital Damas. See In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig., No. 16-CV- 12396-ADB,

, at *3 (D. Mass. Dec. 14, 2018) (ruling that “medical records are relevant and must be produced” where they would define and clarify the parties’ claims and defenses). Any information or forms regarding Ms. Pérez informed consent that is not included in the medical records are also considered relevant. Despite this finding, Hospital Damas shall produce the certified medical records as requested in the subpoena, at Plaintiffs’ cost.

B. The Other Information Sought by Plaintiffs is Reasonably in Defendants’ Possession

As discussed previously, Rule 26(b)(2) requires this Court to limit discovery when it “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Furthermore, if obtaining the information requested puts a significant burden on the nonparty, then courts have the power to modify or quash the subpoena. See Heidelberg Ams., Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.,

(1st Cir. 2003). “[T]his process of weighing a subpoena's benefits and burdens calls upon the trial court to consider whether the information is necessary and whether it is available from any other sources” which is “obviously ... a highly case specific inquiry

and entails an exercise of judicial discretion.” In re Wood, No. 2:19-MC-00146-JHR,

, at *1 (D. Me. Nov. 6, 2019) (quoting 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (“Wright & Miller”) § 2463.1, at 501-506 (3d ed. 2008)). Notably, much of the information Plaintiffs are seeking can reasonably be obtained from Defendants. To wit, the following requests for productions fall under this category: Request for Production No. 3 Provide a copy of any employment and/or professional services contract entered into between Hospital Damas, Inc., and Dr. Jennifer Vargas Santos, as well as between Hospital Damas, Inc., and Dr. Helder Hernández Rivera, that was in effect on the date of the events giving rise to this action.

Request for Production No. 4 Provide a copy of the hospital privileges file of Dr. Jennifer Vargas Santos, including all applications for privileges, credentialing documentation, certifications, renewals, evaluations, credentialing committee approvals, and any other documents related to the privileges granted by Hospital Damas, Inc., to said physicians for the provision of health services Request for Production No. 5 Provide a copy of the hospital privileges file of Dr. Helder Hernández Rivera, including all applications for privileges, credentialing documentation, certifications, renewals, evaluations, credentialing committee approvals, and any other documents related to the privileges granted by Hospital Damas, Inc., to said physicians for the provision of health services.

To date, Plaintiffs have not shown that they have tried to discover the information in question directly from Defendants and through less burdensome methods. It appears that Plaintiffs are trying to circumvent Dr. Hernández and Dr. Vargas by going directly to nonparty Hospital Damas. “Although discovery is by definition invasive, parties to a lawsuit must accept its travails as a natural concomitant of modern civil litigation. Non-parties have a different set of expectations.” Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp.,

(1st. Cir. 1998). “Accordingly, concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon nonparties is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs” for discovery. Id.; see Cascade Yarns, Inc. v. Knitting Fever, Inc.,

(1st Cir. 2014). With this in mind, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(i), the Court can and will require Plaintiffs to first seek any information regarding the privileges held by Dr. Hernández and Dr. Vargas at Hospital Damas or any information regarding their employment relationship with Hospital Damas from the doctors directly, without prejudice of any objection that they may have. See Casillas v. Bayer Puerto Rico, Inc., No. CV 22-1167 (GMM),

, at *6 (D.P.R. Feb. 15, 2024) (citing Haworth, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc.,

(Fed. Cir. 1993)); Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, MA, No. 21-CV-10102-AK,

, at *4 (D. Mass. Apr. 6, 2022); see also Moon v.

SCP Pool Corp.,

(C.D. Cal. 2005) (quashing a subpoena that sought information from a nonparty that pertained to a party since the movant could more easily and inexpensively obtain the documents from the party itself). Therefore, at this juncture, the requests listed above, are quashed.

C. Relevancy of Certain Requests Request for Production No. 2 Provide the full names, current addresses (physical and mailing, both residential and work), telephone numbers, and if applicable, for medical or nursing personnel the professional license number of all individuals who, to your best knowledge and belief, participated in any way in the treatment of patient Maribel Pérez Santiago from June 14, 2022 through June 22, 2022, particularly in connection with the catheter ablation procedure and the events that followed.

Request for Production No. 6 Produce all documents, manuals, bylaws, policies, protocols, committee minutes, credentialing files, or other records in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., at the time Dr. Jennifer Vargas Santos was recruited or began providing services that reflect the procedures, criteria, and requirements for granting medical staff privileges and/or entering into professional services of employment contracts with physicians.

Request for Production No. 7 Produce all documents, manuals, bylaws, policies, protocols, committee minutes, credentialing files, or other records in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., at the time Dr. Helder Hernández Rivera was recruited or began providing services that reflect the procedures, criteria, and requirements for granting medical staff privileges and/or entering into professional services of employment contracts with physicians.

Request for Production No. 8 Provide a copy of all regulations applicable to the medical staff, institutional manuals, and criteria in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., at the time when Dr. Jennifer Vargas Santos was recruited or began providing services at said institution.

Request for Production No. 9 Provide a copy of all regulations applicable to the medical staff, institutional manuals, and criteria in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., at the time when Dr. Helder Hernández Rivera was recruited or began providing services at said institution.

Request for Production No. 10 Provide a copy of all protocols, regulations, institutional manuals, and by-laws that were in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., at the time of the events alleged in the complaint, relating to: a. the management of patients undergoing cardiac ablation procedures or interventions similar to those described in the complaint; b. the administration of anticoagulant medications or prophylaxis to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT); c. postoperative procedures, recovery, and evaluation for medical discharge; d. the assignment, supervision and coordination of physicians, nursing staff, and/or other health professionals to surgical patients; e. the responsibilities of medical staff with privileges in the institution, including contractors or employees; f. any other institutional regulation or policy related to patient care in operating rooms, anesthesia, nursing, or intensive care units.

Request for Production No. 15 Produce all documents, consent forms, patient information sheets, manuals, protocols, or other materials in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., during the period of June 2022, that identify or describe the possible risks or complications associated with performing a catheter ablation procedure (or similar cardiac ablation procedures) on patients.

Request for Production No. 17 Produce all documents, consent forms, manuals, protocols, or other materials in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., during June 2022 that describe the possible risks or complications associated with performing a catheter ablation procedure (or similar cardiac ablation procedures) on patients generally and on patient Maribel Pérez Santiago in particular, including any materials reflecting whether such risks were disclosed to her and whether treatment alternatives were provided.

Request for Production No. 18 Produce copies of all insurance policies, including any primary, excess, or umbrella coverage, that provided liability coverage to Hospital Damas, Inc., for claims arising from medical malpractice or professional negligence, together with all declarations, riders, or endorsements in effect during the period June 14-22, 2022.

Request for Production No. 19 Produce all incident reports, internal investigation reports, committee reports, or other documents created by Hospital Damas, Inc., or its insurers in connection with the care and treatment of patient Maribel Pérez Santiago from June 14-22, 2022. Request for Production No. 20 Produce all bylaws, protocols, regulations, and manuals in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., during June 2022 relating to: a. the process for documenting and responding to intraoperative or postoperative complications; b. informed consent policies and procedures; c. ICU admission and monitoring of post-ablation patients; d. nursing staff supervision and chain of command; and e. reporting obligations for adverse events or sentinel events.

Because subject matter jurisdiction in this action is based on diversity of citizenship, the substantive law of Puerto Rico is applicable. Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indem. Co.,

(1st Cir. 2008). In a medical malpractice suit, a plaintiff may sue a doctor, a hospital, or both, as long as he/she can establish negligence on the part of each particular defendant. This is so because a hospital may be found vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees. Cruz v. Hosp. Episcopal San Lucas, Inc., No. CV 16-2959 (MDM),

, at *5 (D.P.R. July 12, 2022) (citing Márquez Vega v. Martínez Rosado,

,

, 495 (1985)). Lama v. Borras,

(1st Cir. 1994) (discussing negligence and the prima facie elements of a medical malpractice suit against a hospital). It is settled law that a plaintiff in a negligence claim against physicians for medical malpractice under Puerto Rico law “must establish: (1) the duty owed (i.e., the minimum standard of professional knowledge and skill required in the relevant circumstances), (2) act or omission transgressing that duty, and (3) a sufficient causal nexus between breach and the claimed harm.” Sandoval v. Hosp. Oriente, Inc.,

, 427 (D.P.R. 2025) (citations and emphasis omitted). Under Puerto Rico law, a “physician’s duty is ‘to offer his or her patient that medical

care, attention, skill and protection that, in the light of the modern means of communication and education, and pursuant to the current status of scientific knowledge and medical practice, meets the professional requirements generally acknowledged by the medical profession.’” Pagés-Ramírez v. Ramírez-González,

, 113 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Santiago Otero v. Méndez,

(Mar. 25, 1994)). Accordingly, “Puerto Rico holds health care professionals to a national standard of care.” Cortés-Irizarry v. Corporación Insular de Seguros,

(1st Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). The scope of the subpoena itself and of the listed requests

are problematic. In each of the requests, Plaintiffs seeks production of “all documents” regarding either manuals, bylaws, policies, protocols, committee minutes, credentialing files, or other records in effect at Hospital Damas at the time when the Defendants were recruited or began providing services at Damas Hospital or during the period of June 2022. As to these requests, Plaintiffs try to establish that they are relevant to their claims because Ms. Pérez was treated at Hospital Damas. However, the Court finds that although at first glance the requests may appear to be relevant to the malpractice suit, they are in fact irrelevant to the cause of action before this Court, because the medical malpractice claims filed before this Court are against Dr. Hernández and Dr. Vargas and not against the hospital. Thus, in

this case the information that is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims is documentation regarding Dr. Hernández and Dr. Vargas’s compliance with the minimum standard of professional knowledge and skill. However, since Hospital Damas is not a defendant in this case, information regarding the medical or nursing personnel and all individuals from Hospital Damas who participated in any way in the treatment of Ms. Pérez is overly broad and irrelevant. That is, they do not bear on any issue that is in this case. Moreover, these requests are excessively burdensome and overbroad as Plaintiffs are requesting all documentation from the Hospital since the Defendants were recruited, and not only during

the time that encompasses their claims. Equally burdensome and irrelevant to this case are the requests for protocols, policies, regulations, and manuals in effect at Hospital Damas. Again, this is not an ordinary medical malpractice case, where a treating hospital is sued together with treating physicians and administrative information would be relevant to establishing the hospital’s vicarious or supervisory liability. Here, the treating hospital is not a party. In addition, the requests also include information regarding credentialing, which is usually a separate negligence cause of action brought against hospitals, which is not the case here. Thus, in balancing the competing needs for the information sought and the burden it causes, the fact that Ms. Pérez was treated at Hospital Damas does not give way to a fishing

expedition to find information regarding Defendants from a non- party, who happens to be the treating hospital that they deliberately chose to leave of out of their medical malpractice claims. Next, the Court addresses Hospital Damas’s claim that these requests are an end-run around for retrieving similar information and documents for use against Hospital Damas, who is a defendant in the parallel litigation before the Puerto Rico State Court. “In deciding whether a request comes within the discovery rules, a court is not required to blind itself to the purpose for which a party seeks information. Thus, when the purpose of a discovery

request is to gather information for use in proceedings other than the pending suit, discovery properly is denied.” Oppenheimer Fund,

, 353 n.17. (1978). A party is not permitted to exploit the liberal federal discovery rules to obtain information for purposes unrelated to the case at hand, including for use in other lawsuits. 6 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.101[1][b] (3d ed. 2017). To the extent this is the case at bar, Plaintiffs cannot use a subpoena here to obtain information for use in their separate actions against Hospital Damas. See Hukman v. S.W. Airlines Co., No. 18-cv-1204 (RBB),

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2019); Night Hawk Ltd. v. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P., No. 03-cv-1382 (RWS),

, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) (citing Nicholas v. Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank/FSB, No. 90-cv-

1607 (RWS),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 1991)). The overbreadth of the subpoena requests alone provides an independent basis to quash them. In addition, the subpoena requests should be quashed because the information sought by Plaintiffs lack of relevance to this malpractice case to warrant production. On top of this, since Hospital Damas is not a party to this suit, the Court cannot turn a blind eye on the nature of the requests and the mere possibility of gathering information for use in proceedings other than the pending suit. Thus, for all these reasons the requests listed above are quashed, since concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon a non-

party is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs for discovery.

D. Privileged or Confidential Information

Request for Production No. 11 Produce all organizational charts, staffing manuals, policies, job descriptions, or other documents in effect at Hospital Damas, Inc., that identify the entity, unit, or individual(s) responsible for supervising the nursing staff assigned to the area where patient Maribel Pérez Santiago was treated during the period of June 14- 22, 2022.

Request for Production No. 12 Produce all documents, records, evaluations, performance reviews, credentialing files, committee reports, or other materials reflecting any periodic professional evaluations of Dr. Helder Hernández Rivera during his relationship with Hospital Damas, Inc., including whether such evaluations were deemed satisfactory.

Request for Production No. 13

Produce all documents, records, evaluations, performance reviews, credentialing files, committee reports, or other materials reflecting any periodic professional evaluations of Dr. Jennifer Vargas Santos during his relationship with Hospital Damas, Inc., including whether such evaluations were deemed satisfactory.

Request for Production No. 14 Produce all documents, records, performance reviews, evaluations, committee reports, or other materials reflecting any periodic professional evaluations of the nursing staff who participated in the care of patient Maribel Pérez Santiago at Hospital Damas, Inc., during the period of June 14-22, 2022, including whether such evaluations were deemed satisfactory.

(Docket No 78 at 5-7). A review of the requests enumerated 11-14 reflects that these entail production of information or documents regarding the professional evaluations of physicians and hospital staff. As to these requests, Hospital Damas objects to their production because the information regarding periodical evaluations is confidential and privileged as provided by Puerto Rico law and particularly by Regulation 9184. Regulation 9184 is a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of the Puerto Rico Department of Health as authorized by Puerto Rico Act No. 101 of June 26, 1965. Chapter 14 of Regulation 91842 defines quality in healthcare as a model of continuous improvement that satisfies patient needs and expectations while adhering to established standards. Article

14.06 specifically addresses the confidentiality, privacy, and security of information gathered during evaluative processes. Subsection A explicitly designates as confidential all information collected in quality reviews, peer evaluations, risk management, and infection control. Subsection C further prohibits the disclosure of such documents for purposes other than self- evaluation and quality management, emphasizing that public policy seeks to promote transparency within institutions to improve healthcare outcomes. According to the regulations, the confidentiality of peer reviews, quality assurance evaluations, and similar deliberative processes is critical to fostering honest

and productive discussions within medical institutions, which directly benefit patient care and safety. These provisions serve as the legal foundation for Hospital Damas’s privilege assertions. The privileges invoked by Hospital Damas, who is a non-party, is not merely discretionary but are

2 Reglamento del Secretario de Salud para la Construcción, Operación, Mantenimiento y Licenciamiento de los Hospitales en Puerto Rico. mandated by Puerto Rico law to protect sensitive internal processes essential to improving institutional quality. Notably, the few federal courts that have recognized medical peer review privilege have done so in the context of medical malpractice claims. See, e.g., Francis v. United States,

, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011) (recognizing “a privilege protecting peer review

records from disclosure in medical or dental malpractice actions would promote the interests of health care practitioners, health care facilities and the public”). Notwithstanding the apparent applicability of the peer review privilege here, the Court finds there is no need to make a ruling on that matter, as with other information sought by Plaintiffs, the information regarding staff evaluations, again, pertains to any potential supervisory liability by the hospital, who is not a party to the medical malpractice claim before this Court. See supra Part III.B. Therefore, the above listed requests are also quashed.

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Quash is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Hospital Damas shall provide Plaintiffs a certified copy of the medical records held by the hospital as instructed herein, at Plaintiffs’ cost. All other requests included in the subpoena are quashed. Plaintiffs are instructed avoid any delays in the taking of depositions that can impact this Court’s Case Management Order, which still mandates conclusion of all discovery, fact and expert, by December 28, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED In San Juan, Puerto Rico, November 26, 2025.

s/Gina R. Méndez-Miró GINA R. MÉNDEZ-MIRÓ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE