In Keshecki v. St. Vincent's Med. Ctr. (5 Misc. 3d 539 [2004]), Supreme Court precluded defendants from introducing opinion testimony from two of plaintiff's treating physicians because of unauthorized interviews. Justice Maltese concluded that HIPAA--a federal statute that preempts state law--"changed the rules regarding ex parte communications with a plaintiff's treating health care providers." (Id. at 545.) Justice Maltese determined that before private interviews could take place, several conditions required satisfaction. For example, defense counsel is required to obtain a separate authorization, which "on its face should state in bold letters that the purpose of the disclosure is not at the request of (the plaintiff) patient [and that the] purpose of the information is to assist the defendant in defense of a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff." (Id.) Additionally, the authorization may not be combined with a subpoena "which only acts to intimidate the doctor." (Id.) After the interview is conducted, defendant must provide plaintiff with written statements, materials, notations and documents obtained from the interviewed health care provider. (Id.) Defense counsel must further produce copies of any memoranda, "notes, audio or video recording, which records any oral or written statements made of the health care provider" without turning over any attorney observations, conclusions or impressions. (Id.) Upon satisfaction of, among other things, these requirements, if defense counsel chooses to call plaintiff's treating physician as a witness, "the defense attorney shall not be precluded from conducting subsequent private discussions with the physician in preparation for . . . trial testimony and the contents of such further discussions need not be disclosed." (Id.)