Alapati v. Health Care Auth. of Huntsville,
No. 1001881 (Ala. Feb. 1, 2002)

The hospital sued a physician, claiming that the physician failed to make payments in accordance with a loan agreement that he had entered into with the hospital. The physician sought discovery of similar agreements that the hospital had entered into with other physicians. The hospital refused to comply and was granted a protective order which the physician appealed. The trial court upheld the protective order based upon a finding that the discovery was not "calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence."

On appeal, the physician claimed that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying him access to information that was relevant because it related to his defense that the contract with the hospital was illegal and that, because of this, he was entitled to a writ of mandamus to overturn the protective order. The Alabama Supreme Court rejected the physician's argument, stating that it was aware of no authority supporting the physician's argument that the information he was seeking – information that related to other physicians – "would support the legal conclusion that the hospital's violation of federal law in regard to its agreements with other physicians is relevant to whether the particular contract between [the physician] and the hospital is illegal."