Judge orders production of physician personnel files in discovery fight over claimed proprietary staffing model

Clayton County State Court heard competing discovery briefs on April 15 in a medical‑malpractice case in which the plaintiff seeks Dr. Papala’s personnel and credentialing records.

Plaintiff counsel Alen Frederick said the personnel and credentialing records are standard material in malpractice discovery and that defendants’ request to require a confidentiality agreement before production was unreasonable. Defense counsel (Rebecca Babe/May) argued the files include sensitive internal staffing models, compliance program materials and retention decisions that the hospital treats as proprietary and non‑public; defense counsel asked for protection for genuinely sensitive entries.

The judge said personnel files are ordinarily discoverable and asked the parties to narrow redactions and produce files with a privilege log for any asserted privileged entries. “Personnel files get turned over. There are certain things that get redacted … put it on a privilege log,” the judge told counsel, directing them to work out an agreed order and reminding parties that motion briefs must not substitute for required conferral prior to filing in discovery disputes.

On subpoenas to nonparty prior employers, the court said relevance will guide production and that subpoenas should be limited to what relates to the claim; the judge instructed counsel to produce a proposed order spelling out limits and the privilege‑log procedure.

What’s next: The judge said she will circulate an order summarizing her rulings; parties must produce personnel records with routine redactions and a privilege log, and return to the court only to litigate narrow contested privilege claims.