Burch v. Hca Healthcare, No. 2:25-cv-01408-JAD-MDC (Sept. 26, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Jade Riley Burch v. HCA Healthcare
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Nevada (NV)
Court
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided
Sept. 26, 2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.Jade Riley Burch, Plaintiff, v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., et al.,Defendants.United States District Court, D. Nevada. | September 26, 2025 | Slip Copy | 2025 WL 2772572Document Detailsstandard Citation:Jade Riley Burch, Plaintiff, v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., et al., Defendants.,No. 2:25-CV-01408-JAD-MDC, 2025 WL 2772572 (D. Nev. Sept. 26,2025)All Citations:Slip Copy, 2025 WL 2772572Search DetailsSearch Query:adv: (openai "artificial intelligence" chatgpt "google gemini" "westlawcocounsel" "large language model") (hallucinat! fake fictitious spuriousnonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined /p (gpt ai "artificialintelligence" chatgpt chaton perplexity openai copilot "google gemini""google bard" grok "mata v. avianca" claude llm llms)) (hallucinat! fakefictitious spurious nonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined) +3(precedent case "legal authority" "legal case") & DATE(aft 1/1/2023)Jurisdiction:NevadaDelivery DetailsDate:October 2, 2025 at 3:40 AMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineORDER DENYINGMOTION TOEXPEDITE (ECF NO.13) (p.1)All Citations (p.4)
Jade Riley Burch, Plaintiff, v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2772572Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Nevada.Jade Riley Burch, Plaintiff,v.HCA Healthcare, Inc., et al., Defendants.Case No. 2:25-cv-01408-JAD-MDC|Filed 09/26/2025Editor's Note: This decision contains citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist.These invalid citations appeared in the original courtopinion and have been preserved as written since theyare part of the official record. Any links to these invalidcitations have been removed.ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXPEDITE(ECF NO. 13)Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III United StatesMagistrate Judge*1 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Expedite Discovery(ECF No. 13) (“Motion”). For the reasons statedbelow, the Court DENIES the Motion.I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURALHISTORYThis is a civil action arising out of plaintiff'salleged mistreatment while at defendants’ facilitiesin violation of “federal emergency medical treatmentlaw, disability discrimination statutes, and civil rightsprotections. ECF No. 9 at 1. Plaintiff moved forexpedited discovery, seeking various communicationsand records related to plaintiff's medical care, alongwith corporate policies and billing matters. See ECFNo. 13 at 7-9. Defendants opposed plaintiff's requestfor expedited discovery. See generally ECF No.32.1 Plaintiff filed a reply addressing defendants’opposition. ECF No. 33.II. ANALYSISA. General Standards“Generally, discovery does not commence until afterthe Rule 26(f) conference.” Sokolowski v. Adelson,No. 2:14-CV-0111-JCM-NJK, 2014 WL 12607722,at *2 (D. Nev. January 30, 2014) (citing Fed. R.Civ. P. 26(f)). Upon a showing of good cause, theCourt may permit expedited discovery before the Rule26(f) conference. See Carranza v. Koehn, No.: 2:20-cv-01586-GMN-DJA, 2021 WL 4395070, at *2 (D.Nev. September 23, 2021).Courts can consider the following factors to determineif good cause exists, including “(1) whether apreliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth ofdiscovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting theexpedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendantsto comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advanceof the typical discovery process the request was made.”Id. (citations omitted). However, “there is no bindingprecedent establishing specific factors that must beanalyzed before expedited discovery can be ordered.”Carranza, 2021 WL 4395070, at *2. Ultimately, theCourt has discretion to grant or deny the Motion.See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (stating that trial courts have broad authority topermit or deny discovery); Snow Covered Cap., LLCv. Weidner, No.: 2:19-cv-00595-JAD-NJK, 2019 WL2648799, at *2 (D. Nev. June 26, 2019) (stating thatcourts have wide discretion to grant or deny expediteddiscovery); see also Kulkarni v. Upasani, 659 Fed.Appx. 937, 941 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that MagistrateJudge did not abuse discretion when “determining thatexpedited discovery would be overly burdensome” andthat the plaintiff in the matter had not established goodcause).B. Plaintiff Fails To Show That Good CauseExists For Expedited DiscoveryPlaintiff claims that good cause exists for expediteddiscovery because defendants may destroy evidencerelevant to the litigation. See ECF No. 13; see alsoECF No. 33. Plaintiff also claims that good cause existsbecause defendants would not be unduly burdened inproducing the evidence requested. See ECF No. 13;see also ECF No. 33. While the Court understands
Jade Riley Burch, Plaintiff, v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2plaintiff's reasoning, plaintiff fails to show good causefor expedited discovery for the reasons below.i. Defendants Already Have A Duty To PreserveRelevant Evidence*2 Plaintiff argues that expedited discovery isnecessary because defendants may destroy relevantevidence according to their retention policies. ECF No.13 at 4-6 (noting also that the relevant evidence thatwould be destroyed is exclusively held by defendantsand cannot be found elsewhere); see also ECF No. 33.However, defendants already have a duty to preserveevidence they should know is relevant to their defensesor plaintiff's claims, or that may lead to the discoveryof relevant evidence. See Patton v. Wal-Mart Stores,Inc., No. 2:12-CV-02142-GMN, 2013 WL 6158467,at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013) (citations omitted);United States v. Semenza, No. 2:22-cv-02059-APG-DJA, 2024 WL 5294520, at *2 (D. Nev. December19, 2024), report and recommendation adopted subnom. United States v. Semenza, No. 2:22-cv-02059-APG-DJA, 2025 WL 42311 (D. Nev. January 7, 2025).Parties can be sanctioned for destroying evidence (i.e.,spoliation). See, e.g., Jones v. Riot Hospitality Grp.,95 F.4th 730, 734-736 (9th Cir. 2024) (upholding aDistrict Court sanction dismissing a case because ofrepeated violations of the duty to preserve evidence).Plaintiff offers no evidence and the Court findsnothing from the record indicating that defendantswould destroy relevant evidence despite their duty.2Therefore, plaintiff fails to show good cause forexpedited discovery when arguing that defendantscould destroy relevant evidence.ii. Plaintiff Requested Expedited Discovery IsOver Broad and Unduly BurdensomePlaintiff also argues that defendants would not beunduly burdened because the requested expediteddiscovery only involve “routine business records” andare “limited to specific dates... directly relevant to theviolations[.]”. See ECF No. 13 at 6; see also ECF No.33. However, plaintiff's requests include “complete”electronic “audit trails” relating to plaintiff's medicalrecords, any billing record related to plaintiff's careat defendants’ facilities, and “enterprise-wide policiesevidencing RICO violations”, among others. ECF No.13 at 1, 7-9. The Court finds that plaintiff's requestedevidence casts a broad net and would be burdensomefor defendants to produce. See id (requesting alsothat defendants must produce all expedited discoverywithin thirty (30) days); Thus, the Court agreeswith defendants that plaintiff's requested expediteddiscovery are over broad and unduly burdensome atthis stage of the litigation. See ECF No. 32 at 4.Therefore, plaintiff fails to show cause for expediteddiscovery when arguing that defendants would not beunduly burdened. See Aristocrat Tech., Inc. v. Light& Wonder, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00382-GMN-MDC, 2024WL 3639565, at *1-2 (finding no good cause partlybecause the expedited discovery requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome).iii. Plaintiff Does Not Seek Expedited DiscoveryRelated or Narrowly Tailored To The PendingMotion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECFNo. 34)While neither party addresses this issue, the Courtnotes that plaintiff has a pending 09/02/2025 Motionfor Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 34)(“09/02/25 Motion for TRO”). The Court may findgood cause for expedited discovery when the movantalso seeks some form of preliminary injunction.See Assuredpartners of Nevada, LLC v. L/P Ins.Servs., LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00433-RCJ-CLB, 2021 WL4928458, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2021). However,plaintiff does not seek expedited discovery related ornarrowly tailored to the plaintiff's 09/02/25 Motionfor TRO. See Assuredpartners, 2021 WL 4928458,at *2 (“A court may deny a motion for expediteddiscovery if a moving party seeks discovery that isnot narrowly tailored to obtain information relevantto a preliminary injunction determination and insteadgoes to the merits of the party's claims.”); compareECF No. 34 (seeking injunctive relief preventingdefendants from mistreating plaintiff while plaintiffis cared for at defendants’ facilities and preservingevidence relevant to the litigation), with ECF No.13 at 10 (seeking evidence for expedited discoverythat would support plaintiff's monetary federal claimsrather than emergency injunctive relief). Therefore,plaintiff filing the 09/02/25 Motion for TRO doesnot establish good cause for expedited discovery. SeeAssuredpartners, 2021 WL 4928458, at *2.iv. Plaintiff Requested Expedited Discovery IsWell Ahead Of The Normal Discovery Timeline
Jade Riley Burch, Plaintiff, v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3*3 The Court also notes that plaintiff brings thisMotion before defendants have responded to theAmended Complaint (ECF No. 9), well ahead ofthe normal discovery timeline and further weighingagainst expedited discovery. See Wedge Water LLCv. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 21cv0809-GPC(BLM), 2021 WL 2138519, at *4-5 (S.D. Cal.May 26, 2021) (stating that requesting expediteddiscovery when defendant had not answered orresponded to the complaint and did not have the sameability to conduct its own discovery weighed againstgranting expedited discovery).C. Plaintiff's Argument For ExpeditedJurisdictional Discovery Is Not PersuasiveIn the Reply (ECF No. 33), plaintiff argues for limitedjurisdictional discovery because defendants will moveto dismiss defendant HCA Healthcare Inc. (“HCA”)for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 33 at4-5; see also ECF No. 32 at 4 n.2 (stating thatdefendants will move to dismiss HCA for lack ofpersonal jurisdiction).3 Foremost, plaintiff's argumentis speculative and the issue of jurisdictional discoveryis not ripe. While defendants have signaled they willbe filing dispositive motions (see ECF No. 32 at 4n.2), such motions have not been filed. Moreover,plaintiff seeks general, not jurisdictional, discoveryin the Motion and only pivoted to making a generalrequest for jurisdictional discovery in plaintiff's Reply,which is not proper. See Autotel v. Nev. Bell Tel. Co.,697 F.3d 846, 852 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (stating thatarguments first raised in the reply brief are waived)(citation omitted); Eruchalu v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l. Ass'n.,No. 2:12–cv–1264–RFB–VCF, 2014 WL 12776845, at*2 (D. Nev. September 30, 2014) (stating that legalarguments should not be raised for the first time in areply brief “because the opposing party is deprived ofan opportunity to respond.”).D. Plaintiff Is Warned About Using AI and CitingNonexistent or Misleading AuthoritiesUnder Federal Rule 11 and the undersigned Judge'sStanding Order (“Standing Order”) (ECF No. 6),it is plaintiff's responsibility to check and verifythe caselaw cited in plaintiff's court documents.“[A]lthough courts make some allowances for [a] prose Plaintiff's failure to cite to proper legal authority,courts do not make allowances for a Plaintiff whocites to... nonexistent, [and] misleading authorities.”Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez, No. 2:22-cv-02126-CDS-BNW, 2025 WL 522234, at *4 (D. Nev. February18, 2025) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marksomitted). As explained below, plaintiff cites two casesin plaintiff's Motion that are problematic.Plaintiff cites “Qwest Communications Int'l, Inc. v.WorldCom, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d. 1225 (D. Colo2002)” to support the notion that Federal Rule 26(d)(1) “permits expedited discovery upon a showing ofgood cause.” ECF No. 13 at 2. That case citationdoes not exist. The closest case the Court found wasQwest Commc'n Int'l., Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks,213 F.R.D. 418 (D. Colo. 2003), which stated thatcourts may grant expedited discovery under FederalRule 26(d) upon a showing good cause. 213 F.R.D. at419-20.*4 Plaintiff also cites Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Eletron.Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal 2002)when stating that good cause for expedited discoveryexists when “(1) the requesting party demonstratescompelling need; (2) the information is not availablethrough other means; (3) expedited discovery willnot cause undue burden; and (4) the discovery islikely to lead to admissible evidence.” ECF No. 13at 2. While the case citation is correct, that authoritydoes not announce or outline the good cause factorswhich plaintiff represents as authority from the case.Cf. Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276 (“Good cause maybe found where the need for expedited discovery,in consideration of the administration of justice,outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”)Plaintiff disclosed using artificial intelligence (“AI”)in helping with “case law verification.” ECF No. 13 at11. The Court notes that AI can be useful for pro selitigants to conduct legal research and help write courtdocuments. However, AI can often fake or hallucinatedcaselaw and misstate what cases stand for. See, e.g.,Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489 (D. Wyo.2025) (stating how AI can hallucinate cases that donot exist). If plaintiff used AI to help cite the aboveproblematic cases, plaintiff must ensure that any futurecase citations made with the help of AI are properlyverified.
Jade Riley Burch, Plaintiff, v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4The Court may sanction plaintiff if plaintiff citesnonexistent or misleading caselaw in the future,whether or not generated or hallucinated by AI. TheCourt has wide authority and “broad discretion toimpose sanctions.” Official Airline Guides, Inc. v.Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir. 1993). Under FederalRule 11(c), the Court can also order a party to “showcause why conduct specifically described in the orderhas not violated [Federal] Rule 11(b)” and give theparty notice and a “reasonable opportunity to respond.”Fed R. Civ. Pro 11(c)(1), (3). The Court may then issueFederal Rule 11 sanctions if it determines that caseauthority in a court filing is factually misleading. See,e.g., Robinson v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, No. CIV-25-289-D, 2025 WL 2609573 (W.D. Okla. September 9, 2025)(issuing a Rule 11 sanction dismissing the case inpart because plaintiff repeatedly cited nonexistent andmisleading caselaw); see also Fed R. Civ. Pro 11(c)(1). Such sanctions may include case-ending sanctions,such as striking plaintiff's complaint.III. CONCLUSIONThe Court denies the Motion and plaintiff's request forjurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff is also warned aboutusing artificial intelligence and citing nonexistent ormisleading caselaw in the future.ACCORDINGLY,1. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion forExpedited Discovery (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff'srequest for jurisdictional discovery (ECF No. 33)is DENIED.3. Plaintiff is warned about using artificialintelligence and citing nonexistent or misleadingcaselaw in the future.NOTICEPursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a partymay object to orders and reports and recommendationsissued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be inwriting and filed with the Clerk of the Court withinfourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Courthas held that the courts of appeal may determine thatan appeal has been waived due to the failure to fileobjections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn,474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also heldthat (1) failure to file objections within the specifiedtime and (2) failure to properly address and brief theobjectionable issues waives the right to appeal theDistrict Court's order and/or appeal factual issues fromthe order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi ValleyUnited Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediatelyfile written notification with the court of any changeof address. The notification must include proof ofservice upon each opposing party's attorney, or uponthe opposing party if the party is unrepresented bycounsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result indismissal of the action.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2772572Footnotes1Defendants only appeared via counsel on August 25, 2025, and only received Notice of Service on theMotion on August 28, 2025. Therefore, the Court accepts defendants’ response as timely.2Plaintiff also argues that expedited discovery is appropriate to preserve evidence on the speculation thatdefendants’ alleged actions outlined in the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) could warrant criminal charges.ECF No. 13 at 5. The Court notes that this matter is a civil case and plaintiff offers no evidence beyondspeculation that defendants are being criminally investigated or charged. As stated above, defendantsalready have a duty to preserve evidence and can be severely sanctioned for destroying evidence.3The Court construes plaintiff's argument to be asking for alternative relief in light of defendants’ argumentsin the Response and thus not in violation of LCR 12-1. See LCR 12-1 (stating that “the reply brief must onlyaddress arguments made in the response.”). HCA is also the parent company of defendants Mountain View
Jade Riley Burch, Plaintiff, v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5Hospital, Southern Hills Hospital & Medical Center, and Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, LLC. Defendantsclaims that HCA is a “Tennessee-based corporation.” ECF No. 32 at 4.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access