Hardin v. Mendocino Coast District Hospital et al
Filing
197
Discovery Order Denying 193 MOTION to Quash filed by Ellen Hardin. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 8/21/2019. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2019)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
ELLEN HARDIN,
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
10
Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH
v.
MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT
HOSPITAL, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 193
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Plaintiff Ellen Hardin has filed a motion to quash Defendant Mendocino Coast District
13
Hospital’s deposition subpoenas to Jill Pfatenhauer, Julie Adair, and John Sullivan and to strike
14
Defendants’ August 14, 2019 second supplemental initial disclosures, which added Pfatenhauer
15
and Adair to the list of Defendants’ witnesses. ECF No. 193. These witnesses worked with
16
Hardin at her last two employers before she worked at MCDH – Antelope Valley Hospital and
17
Community Regional Medical Center. ECF No. 196-1, ¶¶ 2, 3. Hardin argues that the witnesses’
18
testimony is likely to be irrelevant and invasive of her privacy. She analogizes these deposition
19
subpoenas to the document subpoenas the Court rejected at ECF No. 106.
20
The Court construes this as both a motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of
21
Civil Procedure 26(c) and a motion to quash under Rule 45. To obtain a protective order, a party
22
must show “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1). “[B]road allegations of harm,
23
unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”
24
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations and quotation
25
marks omitted). The Court may consider numerous factors in deciding whether good cause has
26
been shown, such as whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose, whether
27
disclosure will violate a privacy interest, whether disclosure will cause a party embarrassment, and
28
so on. See Rutter Guide, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, Cal.. & 9th Cir. Edition, §
1
11:1072. Under Rule 45, the Court “must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . requires disclosure
2
of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies . . .” “Some courts find
3
that a party has standing to move to quash a subpoena seeking testimony or documents from a
4
nonparty on the ground that it calls for irrelevant or privileged information.” Id., § 11:2286.
5
A major problem with Hardin’s motion is that until a deposition happens, the Court does
6
not know what questions will be asked or what the witness’s answers will be. Courts typically
7
block depositions in advance only when it is obvious that there is a problem, such as an attempt to
8
depose opposing counsel or to take depositions in a case that will be decided based on the
9
administrative record – situations where you don’t need to know what questions will be asked or
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
what the answers will be to know that the deposition simply cannot proceed.
This isn’t that type of situation. Just because Pfatenhauer, Adair and Sullivan worked for
12
Hardin’s prior employers doesn’t mean they categorically have nothing relevant to say or that
13
everything they might say would be invasive of Hardin’s privacy. MCDH says it wants to take
14
these depositions to get a fuller picture of Hardin’s work history to evaluate her damages claim
15
for, among other things, lost future earnings. MCDH also argues that these former co-workers
16
may be able to give testimony relevant to Hardin’s reputation in the small healthcare community
17
in which Hardin alleges MCDH defamed her. The hospital also argues that Hardin’s own
18
testimony about why she left these two prior employers was vague and evasive (that is not an
19
unfair characterization of her testimony, see ECF No. 196-2), and it believes these witnesses may
20
have more information. These are relevant topics for examination, and it seems logical that
21
Hardin’s former colleagues could have knowledge about these matters.
22
As for exactly what information the witnesses are likely to provide in their testimony, that
23
is difficult to say in advance of the deposition. The Court has essentially no information
24
concerning these witnesses’ roles at the prior employers. During the telephonic hearing at which
25
this motion to quash was first discussed, it sounded like Hardin’s counsel also didn’t know much
26
about these witnesses.
27
28
Hardin’s motion accordingly rests on “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by
specific examples or articulated reasoning,” and does “not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Foltz, 331
2
1
F.3d at 1130 (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Court also cannot say with any
2
certainty that the subpoenas “require[] disclosure of privileged or other protected matter” under
3
Rule 45. If during the depositions, the questioning attorney veers into irrelevant information that
4
is inappropriately invasive of Hardin’s privacy, Hardin may move to terminate or limit the
5
deposition under Rule 30(d)(3). See ECF No. 118 (order enforcing Rule 30). To head off an issue
6
that seems likely to arise, questions about any performance problems Hardin may have had at her
7
prior employment and the reasons why she left those jobs are relevant and appropriate.
8
Finally, the Court is unpersuaded that its order concerning prior employment records, see
9
ECF No. 106, is analogous to this situation. In ruling on the document subpoenas, the Court had
the subpoenas before it and could see what they were asking for and what time period the requests
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
covered. The Court could therefore see that documents implicating Hardin’s privacy were at issue
12
and that the subpoenas covered 16 years, which seemed disproportional to the needs of this case.
13
By contrast, the Court does not know the full scope of what MCDH may ask these witnesses –
14
although the general topics MCDH plans to ask about seem relevant – and certainly the Court does
15
not know what knowledge the witnesses have. Because these aren’t Rule 30(b)(6) depositions
16
where a witness may be obligated to know lots of things he or she wouldn’t have personally
17
known, it strikes the Court as unlikely that these three witnesses could even come close to having
18
the breadth of personal information that the previous document subpoenas requested.1
19
There is also no basis to strike Defendants’ supplemental initial disclosures.
20
Hardin’s motion is DENIED.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated: August 21, 2019
23
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
1
Further, the Court is currently evaluating whether newly developed evidence warrants
reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling concerning the document subpoenas, see ECF No. 172
(granting leave to move for reconsideration).
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?