Tsm V Family Service Of Rhode Island

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the plaintiff's neuropsychological evaluation qualifies for sealing and in camera review, and whether a protective order is necessary to balance confidentiality with the defendant's right to discover relevant medical information.
• Whether the plaintiff's requested disability accommodations (e.g., no verbal meet and confer, breaks during hearings) are reasonable under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, considering their potential to alter court proceedings or prejudice the defendant's due process rights.
• Whether the defendant is entitled to compel the plaintiff to produce discovery (interrogatories, documents, third-party communications) under a protective order, considering the plaintiff's disability-related accommodations and the need to avoid Rule 37 sanctions.

Holdings

• The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's ex parte motion for in camera review and to seal her neuropsychological evaluation, ordering the document to be docketed under seal but requiring unredacted production to FSRI under a protective order.
• The court directed FSRI to produce a Rule-compliant privilege log for attorney-client privileged documents by February 20, 2026, following prior deficiencies in privilege logging.
• The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant FSRI's motion to compel, ordering Plaintiff to comply with discovery requests by March 27, 2026, including medical and financial information under a protective order, and requiring a new motion to compel if compliance is inadequate.
• The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to update and clarify disability-related accommodations, allowing written meet and confer discussions but denying other accommodations that would prejudice the defendant.
• The court granted the parties' motion to extend the pretrial schedule, with the fact close date extended to May 15, 2026, and other dates adjusted accordingly.

Remedies

• The Court ordered the neuropsychological evaluation to be docketed under seal and conducted an in camera review, finding it highly relevant but confidential. Production to FSRI is required under a protective order.
• FSRI is required to produce a Rule-compliant privilege log by February 20, 2026, addressing previously inadequate redactions. This was ordered to resolve issues with their document production.
• Plaintiff is required to produce responsive documents and interrogatory answers by March 27, 2026, including unredacted medical and financial info under a protective order. FSRI must file a new motion to compel if compliance is inadequate.
• The pretrial schedule was extended, with the fact close date moved to May 15, 2026, and other dates correspondingly adjusted. This was granted due to delays in discovery compliance.
• The Court granted Plaintiff's request to not participate in informal verbal or telephonic meet and confer discussions as an accommodation, while denying other requested accommodations that would alter proceedings.
• Plaintiff must produce medical and financial documents unredacted but under a protective order. FSRI is allowed access with a designated employee, counsel, and experts. The protective order must be filed by February 20, 2026.

Legal Principles

• The court cited Clay v. Wall and Towner v. A Place for Rover Inc. to establish that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act do not apply to federal courts, and that reasonable accommodations under these laws cannot fundamentally alter judicial proceedings or infringe on other parties' rights. The court also ruled that Plaintiff's medical and financial records are discoverable and relevant to claims under the ADA, requiring production with a protective order to address confidentiality concerns.
• The court ruled that Plaintiff's failure to produce medical and financial records, including third-party communications and prior litigation, constituted inadequate discovery under Rule 37. It set a March 27, 2026 deadline for compliance, allowing unredacted production with confidential information designated under a protective order.
• The court held that medical records are discoverable in ADA cases as they bear on liability and relief, referencing Mello v. Arruda and Stark v. Hartt Transp. Sys., Inc. It ordered unredacted production of Plaintiff's neuropsychological evaluation to Defendant, subject to a protective order to safeguard confidentiality.

Precedent Name

• Towner v. A Place for Rover Inc.
• Gondola v. USMD PPM, LLC
• Amoah v. McKinney
• Clay v. Wall
• Young v. Office of the United States Senate Sergeant at Arms
• Stark v. Hartt Transp. Sys., Inc.
• Mello v. Arruda
• Saller v. QVC, Inc.

Cited Statute

• Rehabilitation Act
• Americans with Disabilities Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Assuming without deciding that Plaintiff has a disability that requires accommodation for her to have meaningful access to the Court,1 the Court finds that, except for one, the additional requested accommodations are not reasonable, as they would fundamentally alter court proceedings and would seriously prejudice FSRI's ability to defend this case.2 The exception is the accommodation that Plaintiff shall not be required to participate in informal verbal or telephonic meet and confer discussions; this aspect of the motion is granted.
• Like medical information, financial information is relevant in this case. See Saller v. QVC, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-2279, 2016 WL 8716270, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 24, 2016) ("Since Defendant bears the burden of proving any failure to mitigate, it is entitled to records relevant to that calculation."); Gondola v. USMD PPM, LLC, 223 F. Supp. 3d 575, 588 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (holding that tax returns are relevant where plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for lost and unpaid wages); Amoah v. McKinney, Civil Action No. 4:14-40181-TSH, 2016 WL 1698267, at *4 (D. Mass. Apr. 27, 2016) (collecting cases holding that past and future lost wages and benefits, lost income, and loss of earning capacity "cannot accurately be computed without documentation of [plaintiff's] prior wages and related employment information").
• The Court hereby orders that, on or before March 27, 2026,4 Plaintiff shall comply with the pending discovery (both interrogatories and document requests) by producing to FSRI responsive documents (unredacted, but, as to confidential and private medical5 and financial information,6 designated as confidential pursuant to the protective order that the Court will enter) and interrogatory answers.