Parsons et al v. Ryan et al

Filing 3449

ORDER denying 3436 Motion to Quash. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/9/19. (CLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Victor Antonio Parsons, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-12-00601-PHX-ROS

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On October 27, 2019, Leonel Urdaneta, M.D., sent an email to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

16

That email explained Dr. Urdaneta previously worked as “Director of Psychiatry for the

17

AZ-Corizon contract.”

18

“caused tremendous harm to patients, including suicides and severe self-injurious

19

damage.” Dr. Urdaneta wished to speak with Plaintiffs’ counsel to “bring[] to light” those

20

“dysfunctions.” After receiving that email, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted counsel for

21

Corizon and asked whether Corizon would “assert any objection” to Plaintiffs’ counsel

22

speaking with Dr. Urdaneta. Corizon’s counsel responded, copying defense counsel,

23

“ADC and Corizon jointly object to communications with Dr. Urdaneta without having

24

defense counsel present.” Corizon’s counsel then stated Plaintiffs’ counsel “will need to

25

coordinate a meeting, or, if you prefer, a deposition, with us, and again, defense counsel

26

will need to be present for either option.” Plaintiffs’ counsel opted to set a deposition via

27

a subpoena issued to Dr. Urdaneta. That subpoena prompted Defendants to file a motion

28

to quash.

In that position, Dr. Urdaneta witnessed “dysfunctions” that

1

Defendants argue the subpoena is improper because it was issued after the close of

2

discovery. (Doc. 3436 at 4). Defendants contend there is no “legal authority which allows

3

[Plaintiff] to take this deposition . . . in a case that settled over five years ago.” (Doc. 3436

4

at 6). Plaintiffs respond that Corizon’s counsel led them to believe a deposition was

5

permissible and the deposition will provide “critical information” that could be useful in

6

the parties’ upcoming settlement negotiations. (Doc. 3441 at 6). Importantly, Defendants

7

concede that Plaintiffs’ counsel can “interview” Dr. Urdaneta but they object to that

8

“interview” taking the form of a deposition.

9

It is true that in the usual case, a Rule 45 subpoena issued after the deadline for the

10

completion of all discovery likely would be improper. Ferreira v. Penzone, No. CV-15-

11

01845-PHX-JAT, 2018 WL 1706212, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2018). But the parties are

12

well-aware that this is far from the usual case. And while this case settled over five years

13

ago, the parties remain mired in disagreements over the agreed-upon monitoring of

14

Defendants’ compliance with the Stipulation. Indeed, the Stipulation contemplates that

15

Plaintiffs remain entitled to periodic updates regarding Defendants’ performance. Thus,

16

Defendants continue to produce documents for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court

17

on a regular basis. Thus, to simply premise their motion to quash on the end of discovery

18

ignores the context and complexity of this action.

19

Moreover, Dr. Urdaneta is a willing witness who wishes to tell Plaintiffs’ counsel

20

about his experiences during a period when the Stipulation was in place. Defendants have

21

admitted that “Plaintiffs can informally interview Dr. Urdaneta within the presence of both

22

Corizon and Defendants’ counsel.” (Doc. 3446 at 4). In other words, whether conducted

23

as a deposition or as an “informal interview,” Defendants concede Plaintiffs’ counsel will

24

be allowed to gather information from Dr. Urdaneta. This last fact is enough to merit

25

denying the motion to quash. Defense counsel has offered no persuasive explanation why

26

a deposition should be barred if an “interview,” with all counsel present, will happen

27

anyway. Allowing a deposition instead of an “interview” will not materially increase the

28

cost or complexity of that proceeding—the attorneys’ fees will be incurred regardless. And

-2-

1

placing Dr. Urdaneta under oath will have the added benefit of ensuring the accuracy of

2

his testimony and make it possible his testimony could be used in future proceedings. In

3

these unique circumstances, the deposition will be allowed to proceed.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Quash (Doc. 3436) is DENIED.

6

Dated this 9th day of December, 2019.

7
8
9

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-