to the patient-plaintiff; and (3) the potential for defense counsel to influence the health care provider’s testimony, unwittingly or otherwise, by encouraging solidarity or arousing sympathy for a defendant health care provider. Id. at 339 (3) (a). However, the Baker Court found that a trial court can avoid these dangers by issuing a qualified protective order that is fashioned “carefully and with specificity as to scope.” Id. Here, given the length of the decedent’s hospital stay, the number of medical conditions placed in issue in the case, the number of health care providers involved in her care, and the complicated nature of the case, the trial court has fashioned an adequately narrow protective order. Compare Tender Loving Health Care Svcs. of Ga., LLC, supra at 575 (2) (b) (<HOLDING>) (punctuation and emphasis omitted). The Baker
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified recognizing right to privacy in receipt of health care services to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care and the safety and good order of the facility holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay holding that the plaintiffs experts were not qualified to offer a medical opinion as to the cause of death because they are not physicians nor otherwise properly qualified to offer a medical opinion holding that trial courts denial of defendants motion seeking a qualified protective order allowing defendants to question the patientplaintiffs health care providers about any and all medical care she received during a threemonth period was not an abuse of discretion because the qualified protective order was not sufficiently tailored to limit the defendants to discussing only the medical conditions at issue in the litigation when the plaintiffs complaint involved only the cause extent treatment and consequences of the patients wound