Response to Motion to Compel Production of Tapes; Second Set of Interrogatories; Motion for Expedited Discovery Schedule

     [||0b3c0879-420e-4e97-b73e-0b9252a30f33||] IN THE ILE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION U a GRAN] 

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 
er ..al., 

N
s
?
 

N
t
”
 

N
a
w
 

a
t
?
 

w
a
d
?
 

a
”
 

a
 

t
l
 

“
u
s
?
 

“
S
t
”
 

Defendants 

"RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al.,; 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 
et al., 

N
a
t
?
 

N
u
a
 

n
s
?
 

N
a
t
l
 

g
t
?
 
N
t
 

n
s
 

a
?
 

“
a
p
t
 

g
t
?
 

Defendants 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
  

Bruce E. Sayers, first being duly sworn upon his oath, 
alleges and says: 

l. That he is one of the attorneys for the defendant, 
Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. : 

2. That on the 30th day of December, 1977, he served 
copies of the following, to-wit: 

Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 
Production by Defendant of Certain Computer Tapes 

Memorandum 

Affidavit of Edward J. Hussey 

upon the following named attorneys of record in this matter, 
to-wit: 

Julian B. Allen 
Attorney at Law 

2009 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 

Beth J. Lief 

Attorney at Law 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

 



" * 

  

Rebecca L. Ross, Esq. 
Department of Justice 
10th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 

Marvin G. Garvin and Edward L. Koven 
Regional Attorney and General Attorney 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
300 South Wacker Drive, 18th Floor 
Chicago, Illinois 

Fred W. Grady 

Assistant United States Attorney 
United States District Court 
Northern District of Indiana 

Federal Building, 507 State Street 
Hammond, Indiana 46325 

Marilyn G. Rose 
Christine B. Hickman 
1751 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036 

Theodore Sendak 
Attorney General 
State House 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46320 

by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, 
and addressed to each of the above-named individuals. 

3. Further affiant $aysLh not. 2 

3) 
> oY Ps 

; 

ta a 
rr E. di 
  

Subscribed and sworn to before me, & Notary Public, 
this 30th day of December, 1977. 

A 
RY Shirley mar, Notary Public 

  

  

\» My Commission Expires: 

March. 2, 1981 

 



  

IN THE Eirier 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA =v ou 1977 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

N
a
”
 

N
m
?
 

N
w
 

S
u
m
 

w
t
?
 

“
w
n
t
?
 

w
n
t
’
 

S
w
?
 

w
p
 

“
w
s
 

Defendants 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

V
e
”
 

Y
a
m
 

a
’
 

N
a
p
?
 

N
a
t
”
 

m
t
?
 

V
a
n
?
 

N
u
i
 

w
t
?
 

“
u
n
 

Defendants 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL 
PRODUCTION BY DEFENDANT OF CERTAIN COMPUTER TAPES 
  

  

Come now the defendants, Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. 

and Denis E. Ribordy, and respectfully ask this Court to 

deny plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Compelling Production 

by defendant, Methodist Hospital, of Certain Computer Tapes, 

and in support thereof state as follows: 

1. That on or about the 26th day of September, 1977, 

plaintiffs herein served their Second Set of Interrogatories 

on defendant, Methodist Hospital, (a copy of which is attached 

hereto as "Exhibit A") requesting detailed and complex definition 

of any and all computer systems utilized by the Hospital. 

2. That thereafter defendant informed plaintiffs’ 

counsel, Ms. Beth Lief, that the Interrogatories had been 

forwarded to the third party independent contractor utilized 

by the Hospital to prepare its payroll accounting (Health 

 



  

Information Systems of Indianapolis Indiana) and utilized 

by the Hospital to retain inpatient information to aid in 

the medical audit internal review function (Commission on 

Professional and Hospital Activities of Ann Arbor, Michigan). 

3. That the defendant further informed Ms. Lief that 

the Hospital did not have a computer expert on staff and 

therefore must rely on these independent contractors to 

prepare answers to plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories. 

4. That, after consultation with their respective 

legal counsels the H.I.S. and C.P.H.A. each submitted answers 

to plaintiffs' Interrogatories to the Hospital which answers 

were prepared and filed with this Court on November 3, 1977. 

5. That thereafter plaintiffs' attorney, Ms. Lief, 

asked that the Hospital ask its computer expert to contact 

plaintiffs' computer expert, Mr. Martin Mador, in an attempt 

to resolve difficulties in the discovery process with regard 

to the computer information. The Hospital then contacted 

H.I.S. and was informed that Ms. Sharon Webster of H.I.S. 

was willing to talk with Mr. Mador. The Hospital has been 

informed that Ms. Webster and Mr. Mador have discussed the 

problem at some length. The Hospital also contacted C.P.H.A. 

and was informed that that organization would speak to the 

plaintiffs or their experts only through their attorney, 

Mr. Robert Fine of Ann Arbor, Michigan. This fact was communi- 

cated to Mr. Brent Simmons, co-counsel for plaintiffs. 

As of this date, the Hospital is not aware of any attempts 

by plaintiffs to communicate with C.P.H.A. 

6. That thereafter on November 15, 1977, plaintiffs 

mailed an informal request to defendant Methodist's attorney, 

Bruce E. Sayers, asking that the Hospital obtain duplicate 

 



  

copies of all computer tapes in the possession of H.I.S. 

That on November 17, 1977, the Hospital asked the H.I.S. 

to examine the Zeasibilicy of such a request. The Hospital 

was informed that such a copy could be made, but that the 

duplicate could not be produced in a manner which would 

eliminate the names, addresses and social security numbers 

from said tapes. The Hospital requested that such a tape 

be produced. The tape has not as yet been received by the 

Hospital. 

7. That thereafter the Hospital prepared copies of 

computer printouts of the information contained on the H.I.S. 

tapes eliminating the names, addresses and social security 

numbers of its employees. Copies of said printouts were 

mailed to all parties herein on December 21, 1977. 

8. That on November 22, 1977, the plaintiffs informally 

asked that the Hospital make the following request on C.P.H.A.: 

Request for the PAS file for all patients 
within the parameters set forth: 

"Copy on magnetic tape 9-track 
in E.8.C.D.1.C. character code 
of all patients in the PAS file 
for Gary Methodist Hospital and 
Broadway Methodist Hospital." 

9. That, on November 29, 1977, the Hospital asked 

C.P.H.A. to examine the feasibility of such a request. 

Mr. Dean Hosmer and Ms. Susan Whitfield of C.P.H.A. have 

informed Methodist Hospital that the request would cover 

the period 1964 to present, that four computer systems and 

four separate programming systems have been utilized by 

C.P.H.A. during that period of time. 

10. That, due to illness, vacation and/or holidays 

the full response from C.P.H.A. to the Hospital's inquiries 

 



  

* » 

has not yet been received (see attached Affidavit of Edward 

J. Hussey). However, the Hospital has been informed that 

complying with the request for the years 1969 to present 

would cost in excess of $3,000.00. For years previous to 

1969 the cost would substantially escalate. 

11. That despite plaintiffs’ protestations to the 

contrary, much of the pertinent information on the C.2.H.A. 

tapes for the years 1965, 1970-77 has been previously provided 

to plaintiffs in Defendants' Answers to First Set of Interroga- 

tories and the pertinent information contained on the H.I.S. 

tapes sans names, addresses and social security numbers 

has been provided to plaintiffs in defendants' December 

21 response to the letter of Mr. Brent E. Simmons. 

12. That defendant believes that release of the H.I.S. 

and C.P.H.A. tapes would violate the right to privacy of 

its patients and employees, as well as violate the confidential 

relationship between the patient and hospital, the patient 

and doctor as well as the Hospital and doctor. 

13. That plaintiffs in their Motion and Supplemental 

Motion failed to comply with Local Rule 7(e) in that plaintiffs 

failed to refer to Local Rule 7(e) in their Motions, Called 

to convene a personal meeting with defense counsel in a 

Sincere attempt to resolve differences and, therefore, failed 

to recite the date, time and place of such personal conference 

and the names of individuals attending. 

14. That defendants assert that plaintiffs' Motion 

is too broad in that it encompasses a time span from 1964 

to present and would require the release of information 

which is irrelevant to the matter at hand, that much of 

the information sought is repetitive and disclosure of other 

 



  

* ® 

information would violate various confidential relationships 

between Hospital, patient and doctor and violate the right 

of privacy of various individuals. 

15. The defendants reiterate their position which 

has been frequently conveyed to the plaintiffs that if the 

Plaintiffs would only identify precisely what information 

they want from the tapes, the defendants will make every 

effort to have a computer printout prepared of that information 

and make it available to plaintiffs. 

WHEREFORE, defendants pray that the Court deny plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel in its entirety or in the alternative for 

a Protective Order limiting production of the C.P.H.A. and 

H.I.S. tapes to the years 1974 to present, in a form eliminating 

all reference to patient, doctor or employee name, number, 

address and social security number, and Furthermore that 

plaintiffs be required to bear any costs attendant to such 

production, and Furthermore that utilization of such tapes 

and that information obtained therefrom be limited to the 

Present action before this Court. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HODGES, DAVIS, GRUENBERG, COMPTON & SAYERS 
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, METHODIST HOSPITAL 
OF GARY, INC. AND DENIS E. RIBORDY 

go J ; ol Lr 

BY? ANA AN jen LB liar 
  

“BRUCE EE, SAYERS / 

5525 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 46410 
Ph, 981-2557 

 



  

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

N
t
”
 

N
t
”
 

N
a
t
’
 

N
a
l
?
 

N
a
a
t
 

Na
ni
” 

u
n
i
 

a
u
t
?
 

u
u
?
 

p
a
t
”
 

Defendants 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

N
a
?
 

N
a
l
l
 

N
a
t
’
 

S
s
t
?
 

N
u
t
?
 

a
n
t
 

S
a
i
?
 

u
t
 

“
m
t
 

“
u
t
?
 

Defendants 

MEMORANDUM 
  

Plaintiffs in support of their Motion to Compel Production 

of certain computer tapes cite the need for said tapes to 

enable plaintiffs to analyze their claims that Gary Methodist 

Hospital is understaffed, that nurses at Gary Methodist 

Hospital work more overtime than the nurses at Broadway 

- Methodist, and that transfers of employees from Gary Methodist 

Hospital to Broadway Methodist Hospital at the time Broadway 

Methodist Hospital was opened was discriminatory. (Affidavit 

of Beth J. Lief dated December 20, 1977 p. 2). Plaintiffs 

further state that they are entitled to the requested data 

in "computer readable form" as a matter of law. (Affidavit 

of Brent E. Simmons dated December 15, 1977 p. 3). 

Defendant, Methodist Hospital, would point out to the 

Court that the "claims" referred to by Ms. Lief are not 

 



  

disclosed in plaintiffs' Complaint. Furthermore, there 

have not been, to this point any allegations by plaintiffs 

concerning discriminatory hiring or staffing at Methodist 

Hospital. The plaintiffs' Complaint speaks only of deprivation 

of Civil Rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, not employment discrimination under Title VII. Perhaps 

the material requested would be relevant to such claims. 

However, that is not the issue herein. 

The plaintiffs further allegation that defendants do 

not dispute the relevance of the requested materials is 

not correct. While some of the material contained on the 

tapes may be relevant and, therefore, discoverable, other 

material such as employee names and addresses and patient 

and doctor identification cannot be relevant (especially 

in light of the Court's decision not to require notice to 

the plaintiff class) but can only serve to invade the rights 

of privacy of the individuals concerned. 

Nevertheless, despite the questionable relevance of 

much of the material requested, the vast majority of the 

information contained on the H.I.S. tapes, and a good deal 

of the information contained on the C.P.H.A. tapes has been 

previously provided to the plaintiffs in response to the 

plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories as well as informal 

letter and telephonic requests by the plaintiffs' attorneys. 

Furthermore, the assertion by Mr. Simmons that the 

plaintiffs are entitled to the tapes as a matter of law 

is not a complete and accurate statement of the law. 

Plaintiffs cite Donaldson v. Pillsbury Co., 554 PF 24 
  

825 (8th Cir. 1977) in support of their assertion. The 

 



  

Pillsbury case was a Title VII employment discrimination 
  

case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in reversing 

the lower courts denial of class action certification and, 

dismissal of complaint, stated that the lower court might 

re-examine its denial of plaintiffs' motion to compel production 

of computer tapes in light of the Appellate Court's ruling 

on the class question. The Court does state that two district 

courts had upheld motions for production. The Court seems 

to be stating that such material may be Ais cover ALE in 

‘certain circumstances BUT NOT as a "matter of law". 

Plaintiffs also cite United States v. Davey, 543 F 
  

2d 996 (2nd Cir. 1976). In this case the Internal Revenue 

Service summoned, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7602, the original 

business records of the Continental Corporation, including 

some records which were contained on computer tape. The 

important distinction here is that the I.R.S. was acting 

pursuant to a specific statute allowing the Service to compel 

production of the original business records of a taxpayer 

and the materials sought were records kept pursuant to another 

requirement of the Internal Revenue Service Regulations, 

i.e. R.R., 71-20, 1971-1 Cumm. Bill 392 requiring expense 

records to be kept for a minimum of 5 years. Printouts 

or duplicate tapes were not sufficient as there was no showing 

that these materials were accurate. The government was 

involved, therefore, a different set of rules applied. 

The Davey court does suggest however that, in considering 

such a summons, or a motion to produce, that the court must 

weigh the obvious accuracy and simplicity of the tapes against 

the relvancy of the material contained therein, the burden 

and cost of production, the confidentiality of the information 

on the tapes and whether such a production is unnecessarily 

duplicative. 

 



  

The third case cited by plaintiffs is Adams v. Dan River 
  

Mjilis, Inc,, 54 P.R.D. 220, a 1972 District Court opinion   

from Virginia. This case involved alleged racially discrimina- 

tory employment practices by the defendant, and plaintiffs’ 

request for defendant's current computerized master payroll 

file. After reviewing the notes of the Advisory Committee 

on Rules pertaining to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (which states in part that "In many instances...respon- 

dent will have to supply a print-out of computer data.” 

28 U.S.C.A. Rule 34) the Court ordered the production of 

a computer tape stating that the Advisory Committee's notes 

did "not appear to preclude the production of computer in- 

put information such as computer cards or tapes.” 54 P.R.D., 

at 222. The Court noted the accuracy and inexpensiveness 

of such a production. The Court did not go through the 

well reasoned weighing process outlined above. 

Defendant asserts that, if the Court considers: the 

fact that much of the information contained on the tapes 

requested has already been produced (at considerable expense 

to the defendant), the effect that wholesale production 

of these tapes might have on the Hospital-patient-doctor 

relationship as well as the privacy rights of the individuals 

concerned, defendants' willigness to provide particular 

information assuming it is discoverable if plaintiffs will 

only identify what information it is that plaintiffs want, 

and the further expense and burden to produce such tapes, 

the Court will deny plaintiffs' Motion. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HODGES, DAVIS, GRUENBERG, COMPTON & SAYERS 
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, METHODIST HOSPITAL 
OF GARY, INC. AND rr RIBORDY & ” / 

BY ps ™ ; AA KY it) ry Pd . i Sle 

BRUCE E. SAYERS / 
5525 Broadway / 
Gary, Indiana 46410 
Ph. 981-2557 

  

i 

 



              

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve. NO. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

0.
 

00
 

00
 

90
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

Defendants. 

ee
 

oo
 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve NO. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

e
o
 

o
e
 

o
e
 

LX
 

J 
LX
 

J 
(
1
 

LX
 

] 
o
e
 

L
X
]
 

LX
] 

  

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
TO DEFENDANT METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, 

INC. 

Plaintiffs respectfully request, pursuant to Rule 33 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that defendants answer the . 

following interrogatories within ten (10) days. The definitions 

and rules set forth in plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories 

apply to the following questions: 

The following are definitions eed throughout these 

interrogatories 

a) a "field" is composed of one or more columns 

; : ; : ; (characters), and comprises a discrete item of information, such | 

Or aie andi oe SM oe OF 7] 

 WEXHIBIT
C A Ein. 

RSET. NPE ., PN SR 

  
  

  
 



  
    

% & 

as name, race, job, etc. 

.b) all individual fields for one entry to the file, calor 

together, form a record. 

c) A "file" or "Data Base," is composed of any number of 

records. Each record is similar in format or contents and func- 

tions to all others, although records of different structure 

(Layout) may exist together in the file, As a field is the log- 

ical subdividion of a record, so the record is the building block 

of a file. A file exists in computer-readable form, which may 

include magnetic disks, drums, data cells, direct access devices, 

or tapes; keypunch cards; punched paper tape; or optical charac- 

ter forms. Any medium which can be processed by an input/output 

device is considered to be in computer-readable form. Print-outs 

are not included. 

a For the purposes of these interrogatories, the term 

"Data Base" is limited to only those files containing any of the 

information below relating to (1) any employee, and (2) medical 

staff (present, former, prospective, hourly, salaried, affiliated, 

management, professional, operative, laborer, etc.) of defendant, 

and (3) any patients serviced at defendant's facilities. 

As to Sloe and persons with staff privileges: 

1) race 

2) sex 

3) age or birth date 

4) social security number 

5) seniority dates used for purposes of progression, 

demotion, layoff, recall, vacation 

6) date of hire or affiliation agreement 

7) date of termination 

Te 

4 

  
 



      

® @ 

8) reason for termination 

9) job, department, gang, plant, division, 1 lile-nf-orogress 

sion, organization assignments 

10) dates of such assignments 

11) rates of pay 

12) the dates of such rates 

13) dates of all layoffs, leaves of absence, or other extend- 

ed absences from work 

14) relative Staning among other employees (such as senior- 

ity) 

15) identification, clock or badge number 

16) transfers between hospital facilities, plants, depart- 

ments, etc. 

17) the dates of such transfers 

18) level of education: format, vocational, on-the-job, etc. 

19) the dates of such education 

20) medical qualifiactions or disqualifications 

21) hourly or salarly pay, status 

22) work station or physical working location 

23) shift 

24) requests or bids for promotion or transfer 

25) waivers or refusals to promote 

26) gross earnings for calendar years 1972 — present 

27) gross earnings for all pay periods 1972 — present 

28) hours worked or hours paid for calendar years 1972 — 

present 

29) hours worked or hours paid for all pay periods 1972 — 

present 

  

 



  

@ ® 

30) address 

31) evaluations or ratings made of employee 

32) skills, qualifications, training gained by employee 

during employment with defendant 

33) name and race of supervisors 

34) professional qualification of employee, such as certifi- 

cates held, languages spoken 

35) pension richts or payments 

36) union status 

37) job vacancies 

38) job class, pay level, pay grade 

As to patient services, all information for the years 1970-1977 

"with regard to Gary Methodist Hospital and for the years 1976- 

1977 for Broadway Methodist Hospital: 

(L) for each patient in inpatient services: zip code, 

race, age, source of admission, number patient days, service 

(clinic) and source/method of payment;*/ 

(2) total number of patients and patient days in in- 

patient services; 

(3) for each patient services in emergency room: zip 

code, race, age, source of payment, whether admitted, service 

(4) total number of patients given emeTgehiy Loam ser— 

vices; 

(5) for each ancillary service (with diagnostic x-ray 

and therapeutic x-ray separately reported.as distinct services) 

name of service, each patient by race, age, zip code, source of 

admission, method of payment 

(6) for each ancillary service (defined as in (5)), 

  

| |     */ E.g., CHAMPUS, Medicare, Medicaid, Blue Cross, Workmen's 

Compensation, Self-Pay, Free Care, Unknown. 

ee 

  

 



      

® @® 

total number of patients; 

| (7) for each clinic service, separately by name of 

clinic: each patient by zip code, race, age, method of payment, 

total number of patients. 

If any of these Interrogatories can be atisveron by produc- 

tion of working documents associated with defendant's customary 

data processing operations they may be supplied in lieu of such 

answer only if accompanied by clear explanations of any coded, 

abbreviated, or otherwise ambiguous material contained therein. 

PART 1 

Answer each question in this Part separately for each Data 

Base (see definition, supra), which the defendant currently hain 

tains, or has previously maintained. If the answer to any 

question applies to two or more distinct computer systems, answer 

that question separately for each. Answer each question forthe 

entire time period during which the data base was in use. If the 

data base changed over time in any way, answer each applicable 

question separately for each differing time period in question. 

1. ‘Skate the name of the data base, either as it is re- 

ferred to in the defendant's customary data processing operation 

or so that it can be uniquely identified in subsequent answers 

or pleadings. 

2. Which categories of employees are included in the data 

base. 

3. When was the data base first created, and when was it 

last used. 

4, If volumes, version, or generations of the data base are 

(were) periodically produced, state: 

  

 



      

“ =P 

a) how often a copy is produced. 

b) what period of time is covered by each volume. 

c) in what ways any of the answers to questions in Part 

I differ between different volumes of the data base. 

d) by volume serial or other unique identifier, the vol- 

umes still extant and the contents and dates thevsol, retained, 

and if so, | 

€) identify any volumes scheduled for destruction within 

the next twelve months. 

5. If entries in the data base are periodically updated, 

without a new volume or copy being created (such as the weekly up- 

dating of a disk master file), state: 

a) how often the data base is updated. 

b) which fields or records are subject to revision. 

c) whether complete copies are made and retained, and 

if sO, 

d) state by volume or other unique identifier the vol- 

umes still extant, the contents and dates thereof, and any pro- 

posed destruction dates. 

e) whether changed or purged entries are maintained in 

computer-readable form, and if so, 

f) answer all applicable questions in Part I for any 

files containing these purged entries. 

6. Provide the following for all. fields found within each 

different record structure within the data base. In the alterna- 

tive, a "record layout" for the file may be produced, providing ig 

supplies each requested item of information in a clear, legible, 

and unambiguous format:   
 



      

® ® 

a) its location within the record. 

b) a brief description of its contents. 

c) a brief description of its function and signifi- 

cance, if not immediately obvious (such as name, race). 

d) the physical representation of its contents (char- 

acter, zoned decimal, packed decimal, signed decimal, binary, 

floating point, location of assumed decimal point, location of 

sign, right—or left—justified, strictly numeric, numeric with 

blanks, etc.). 

e) the sign codes used for decimal fields (i.e., IBM 

standard PE he oY or Ppt. for plus, hex "HY for minus). 

f) the status of the field; whether data was always 

entered, was sometimes entered (was optional), or was never en- 

tered (space was provided, but field was not used). 

g) for each field which Sontains "coded" entries, such 

as a Field for race containing =z "1" for white and a "2" for 

black, or numbers representing department titles, provide a 

translation table which contains each possible entry and its 

English translation or literal meaning. If such translation 

table exists in computer-readable form, answer all appropriate 

questions in Part I concerning the table. 

7. If the file is composed of records differing in format 

from one another, provide the record layout for each possible 

record entry, (c.f. question 6) and state how the format approp- 

riate to any particular record can be ascertained. If the file 

is "hierarchical® in structure (i.e., it contains an unpredicta- 

ble number of minor-level records related in some manner to a 

preceeding major-level record), describe in detail the structure 

  

 



  

of the file, and state how different record types and levels can 

be recognized. 

8. State the approximate number of logical records in the 

data base, 

9. Describe the storage device or medium. 

10. : State the: 

a) logical record length. 

b) physical record length (blocksize). 

c) record format (fixed length, variable length, spanned, 

blocked. 

d) file organization (sequential, indexed, direct, VSAM) 

e) reins code (EBCDIC, ASCII, BCD, Hollerith, 

column binary). 

11. State the programming language or retrieval system used 

to create and access the data base. 

12. If the data base is generated or accessed by a program 

which is part of a formal or documented processing system, pro- 

vide a "flowchart" for that system, showing the flow of informa- 

tion (files) from program to program. 

13. If on magnetic tape, state the density (bits per inch), 

the number of tracks (7.9), the recording technique (parity, 

translation, conversion, character code) if on 7 track, the form 

of internal identifying labels (IBM standars, non-labelled, IBM 

1400 series, Burroughs standard, etc.), and the format of black 

prefixes if ASCII. 

14. With reference to the fields enumerated in the answer 

to Question 6, describe the order in which records in the data 

base are sorted.       
 



i 
14 

  

PART 11 

15. Briefly describe each of the defendant's computer facil~ 

ities, including: 

a) manufacturer. 

b) model number. 

c) name and release of operating system. 

d) type and number of each input/out/put device. 

16. If the defendant's current computer system is not cap- 

able of copying each of the data bases identified in Part I ac- 

cording to the following parameters, state why not, and state 

what alternatives are available for each of the parameters 

listed: 

a)onto magnetic tape. 

b) 5 track. 

c): at ‘800, 1600, or 6250 bpi. 

d) in EBCDIC character code. 

e) with IBM standard OS 1abels, 

17... ‘For sack Intoraation retrieval program or report gen- 

erator (i.e., software capable of producing a multitude of 

different reports, depending on control information entered) 

available, whether purchased, leased, or written locally, 

a) identify its name or title, vendor or author, and 

any optional features installed. 

b) identify which of the data bases named in Part I 

Lhe program operates on, and whattype of reports it is capable 

of generating. 

c) Identify and describe all documents, reference man- 

uals or texts which describe the program and its operation. 

18. If defendant contracts with an outside service bureau 

or agency for processing of data bases identified in Part I, 

Os       
 



      

*® { i 

a) describe those services completely. 

b) indicate which data bases identified in Part I are 

in the possession of such bureau or agency. 

c) answer all parts of questions 15 and 16 concerning 

the bureau's data processing capabilities. 

19. Give the name, business address, job title, and job 

function of: 

a) the manager of defendant's data processing operation: 

b) each analyst or programmer who has intimate knowledge 

of the contents or function of each data base identified in Part 

I (specify which). 

c) the person(s) who answered these Interrogatories. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

JACK GREENBERG 

BETH J. LIEPF 

MELVYN LEVENTHAL" 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

JULIAN B. ALLEN 

CHARLES B. MILLER 

2009 Broadway 

Gary, Indiana 46407 

MARILWG. ROSE 

CHRISTINE G. HICKMAN 

1751 N Street, N.W. 

washington, D. C. 20036 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: 

1)   
 



  

IN THE 

| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. NO. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

60
 

00
 

00
 

49
 

00
 

00
 

ep
 

G0
 

SB
 

G0
 

00
 

00
 

s
e
 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. NO. B 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

88
 

00
 

00
 

05
 

00
% 

OC
 

ee
 

OF
 

0
 

00
 

ee
 

0
 

[2
] 

    MOTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION 

FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE 

Please take notice that plaintiffs respectfully move this 
| 

Court pursuant to Rule 33 (a) for an expedited discovery schedule 

requiring the defendant to answer the attached Interroga- 

tories within ten (10) days of service on the grounds that this     
Court has set trial in the above-captioned cases for December 5. 4 

1977 and that plaintiffs thereforerequire answers to interroga- 

tories as quickly as possible, and that defendants will suffer no 

      
 



  

prejudice since the interrogatories only seek information which 

is or should be readily at defendant's disposal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

- 

Dit, fl Kote 
JECK GREENBPRG 
BETH J. LIEF 
MELVYN LEVENTHAL 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

  

JULIAN B. ALLEN 
CHARLES B. MILLER 

2009 Broadway 

Gary, Indiana 46407 

MARILYN G. ROSE 

CHRISTINE G. HICKMAN 

1751 N Street, N. W. 

washington, D. C. 20036 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: 

      
 



* » 

  

Certificate of Service 
  

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing plaintiffs'’ 

Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Methodist Hospital of   

Gary, Inc.,Motion & Notice For Expedited Discovery Schedule, 
  

was served by United States mail, postage prepaid, on 
va 

the HE day of Dba tty 1977; on counsel for 
J 

defendants as follows: 

  

Rebecca L. Ross, Esq. 
Department of Justice 
10th and Pennsylvania Avenue 
Washington D.C. 

Marvin G. Garvin, Esg. and Edward L. Koven, Esq. 
Regional Attorney and General Attorney 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
300 South Wacker Drive, 18th Floor 
Chicago, Illinois 

Fred W. Grady, Esq. 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Northern District of Indiana 
Federal Building, 502 State Street 
Hammond, Indiana 46325 

Attorneys for Defendant Secretary of Health, 
Education and Welfare 

Hodges, Davis, Gruenberg, Compton & Sayers 
Bruce E. Sayers, Esq. 

5525 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 46401 

Attorneys for Defendant Methodist Hospital 
of Gary, Inc. 

Theodore L. Sendak, Esq. 

Assistant Attorney General of Indiana 
219 State House 
Indianapolis, Indiana 

Attorneys for State Defendants       
 



      

Anthony DeBonis, Jr., Esq. 

Joseph E. Costanza, Esq. 
Murphy, McAtee, Murphy & Costanza 
First National Bank Building 
720 W. Chicago Avenue 
East Chicago, Indiana 46312 

Attorneys for Defendant Kipton Kaplan 

  7 
eth J. Left 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

  

 



  

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al,, 

Defendants 

V
e
s
?
 

t
®
 

C
n
”
 

N
n
”
 

“
u
s
 

S
a
n
t
?
 

w
t
?
 

s
t
 

“
g
t
?
 

“
u
s
?
 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

Vs. No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

W
t
”
 

a
 

N
w
?
 

N
a
s
t
?
 
N
w
?
 

N
u
i
?
 

i
t
?
 

“
a
w
?
 

“
w
n
t
 

“
e
g
?
 

Defendants 

Ar rPIDAVIT 
  

Comes now Edward J. Hussey, who being first duly sworn 

upon his oath, alleges and says: 

l. That he is one of the attorneys for the defendants, 

Methodist Hospital of Gary and Denis E. Ribordy. 

2. That he has been engaged in various attempts to 

comply with the discovery request for production, motions, 

interrogatories and various informal discovery requests 

made by the plaintiffs. 

3. That he has been in contact with plaintiffs' attorneys, 

Beth J. Lief and Brent E. Simmons, with regard to the plaintiffs’ 

Second Set of Interrogatories concerning various computer 

data maintained for Methodist Hospital of Gary by various 

independent contractors. 

 



    

4. That he has been in contact with Mr. Dean Hosmer 

and Ms. Susan Whitfield of the Commission on Professional 

and Hospital Activities and Ms. Sharon Webster of Health 

Information Systems, the two independent contractors utilized 

by Methodist Hospital to maintain inpatient and payroll 

information. 

5. That he has been informed by Ms. Sharon Webster 

of Health Information Systems that the payroll information 

for Methodist Hospital has been retained on the H.I.S. computers 

for the years 1974 to present. That the H.I.S. computer 

information can be duplicated in tape form at a reasonable 

cost. However, that material includes the names, addresses, 

social security numbers, rates of pay, and annual earnings 

for all of Methodist Hospital's erblovess. Furthermore, 

Ms. Webster informs him that H.I.S. does not have the capability 

of deleting this information from the tapes and that, therefore, 

any duplicate tape produced pursuant to plaintiffs' request 

would contain such information. 

6. That he has proffered to plaintiffs’ attorneys 

On December 21, 1977, a printout listing of the race, sex, 

zip code, position and work location of the employees of 

Methodist Hospital obtained from Methodist Hospital's records 

and information retained by H.I.S. 

7. That he has been informed by C.P.H.A., the independent 

contractor utilized by the Hospital to maintain inpatient 

records on computer tapes, that that institution maintains 

records on Methodist patients for the years 1964 through 

present and that said records are in computer form. However, 

the records have been kept in four different computer systems 

utilizing four different computer programs for various years. 

 



  

The systems for 1964 through 1966, 1967 through 1969 and 

1970 through 1973 are different computer systems and different 

computer programs from those currently being utilized by 

C.P.H.A. Therefore, the cost of complying with plaintiffs’ 

request as well as the time required to comply with the 

plaintiffs' request is exorbitant. He has been informed 

by C.P.H.A. that the cost of reproducing the tapes simply 

for the years 1969 to present to be in excess of $3,000.00. 

8. That he has communicated at various times all of 

the above information to Mr. Brent E. Simmons or to Ms. 

Beth J. Lief, attorneys for plaintiffs. 

9. Further affiant sayeth not. 

Maa 
EDWARD J. HUSSEY 
  

  

STATE OF INDIANA ( 

4p]
 

COUNTY OF LAKE 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, 

this Re sory of December, 1977. 

sites willie spn 
Med, 7 7 Notary Public 
  

~~ My Commission Expires: 
{ 

nt 2 LZ [||0b3c0879-420e-4e97-b73e-0b9252a30f33||]