Hardin v. Mendocino Coast District Hospital et al

Filing 80

Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 1/3/2019. (tshlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ELLEN HARDIN,
Plaintiff,

8

11

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)

Re: Dkt. No. 68
MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT
HOSPITAL, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff Ellen Hardin’s motion to quash a dozen subpoenas served by

14

Defendants Mendocino Coast District Hospital, et al. ECF No. 68. Hardin filed the motion in

15

violation of the Court’s Standing Order on Discovery, which states that “[i]f the parties are unable

16

to resolve their dispute informally after a good faith effort, including meet and confer efforts

17

conducted by lead counsel, the parties have two options,” which are to contact the Court to arrange

18

for a telephonic conference or prepare a joint statement of not more than five pages. Hardin did

19

neither.

20

Defendants represent that they have withdrawn without prejudice seven of the twelve

21

subpoenas, so there is no active dispute to resolve as to those. Tektronix produced documents to

22

Defendants, but Defendants destroyed them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23

45(e)(2)(B), and Southern Coos Hospital & Health Center responded that it has no responsive

24

documents, so there is also no live dispute as to those subpoenas.

25

Hardin’s last two employers, Antelope Valley Hospital and Community Regional Medical

26

Center, produced documents before the current motion was filed. However, that does not moot

27

Hardin’s arguments that those documents may contain privileged or confidential materials, and

28

Rule 45(e)(2)(B) expressly addresses the situation where protected materials were produced in

1

response to a subpoena. The Court ORDERS Defendants to produce to Hardin the documents

2

produced by Antelope Valley Hospital and Community Regional Medical Center within 30 days

3

so that Hardin may assert any applicable objections under Rule 45(e)(2)(B). If Hardin has any

4

such objections, the parties must meet and confer and raise any unresolved disputes pursuant to

5

the Court’s Standing Order.
As for the subpoena to Lower Umpqua Hospital, a prospective employer that chose not to

7

employ Hardin, the subpoena appears significantly overbroad, but it also seems likely that Lower

8

Umpqua would not have any responsive documents other than Hardin’s job application and any

9

internal documents discussing the reasons for not hiring her. The Court ORDERS the parties to

10

meet and confer and within two weeks either to agree upon a revised subpoena to Lower Umpqua

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

or raise the dispute over the scope of that subpoena pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order.

12

Pending resolution of the scope of this subpoena, the Court STAYS Lower Umpqua’s obligation

13

to comply. Defendants are ORDERED to serve to Lower Umpqua with this order immediately.

14

Hardin is ADMONISHED to comply with the Court’s Standing Order on Discovery.

15

Hardin’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: January 3, 2019

20
21
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2