Storey v. Effingham County et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting 53 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/23/2015. (loh)

0

I:,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SAVANNAH OW.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

JUL 23 1815
SAVANNAH DIVISION
VALERIE STOREY, Individually
and as Executrix of the
ESTATE OF KENNETH CARTEE,

idJ
GA

CLERK- SO. DIST.
)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Case No. CV415-149
EFFINGHAM COUNTY,
JIMMY MCDUFFIE, Individually,
JIMMY MCDUFFIE, in his
official capacity as Effingham
County Sheriff,
TRANSFORMHEALTHRX, INC.,
EFFINGHAM COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS,
ASHBY LEE ZYDONYK, Deputy,
BRYAN SHEARHOUSE, Corporal,
etal.

Defendants.

ORDER
This civil rights case traces to the September 9, 2012 arrest of
Kenneth Cartee. On that day he suffered from a chronic and severe
mental disability resulting from an attempted suicide many years earlier.
Doc. 1 at 2.' He also "was violent to [p]laintiff Valerie Storey and

1

For the purpose of this Order only, the Court is accepting these factual allegations
as true.

suicidal due to his mental disability and his inability to correctly ingest
his [prescribed] medications. . . ." Id. at 2. Law enforcement took him
to jail, where he was deprived of critical medical care. Id. at 3 "Cartee
eventually died on June 25, 2013 from medical complications arising
from the condition he was left in after his incarceration." Id.
Storey, his estate's representative, thus brought this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action. Doc. 1. One of the defendants subpoenaed Gateway
Behavioral Health Services -- evidently for Cartee's medical records.
Doe. 53. Gateway's otherwise-supported motion to quash or modify that
subpoena is unopposed under Local Rule 7.5 (no response means no
opposition), so the Court GRANTS the maximum relief Gateway
requests. Doe. 53 at 1 ("to quash or modify" it). Accordingly, the
subpoena is QUASHED. Any party who subpoenas Gateway must
consult the "how-to" guide supplied in Gateway's brief (doe. 53) before
serving the subpoena. The Court also imports D.KAN. RULE 37.22 into
2

That rule, in its entirety:
The court will not entertain any motion to resolve a discovery dispute
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, or a motion to quash or modify a
subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), unless the attorney for the moving
party has conferred or has made reasonable effort to confer with opposing
counsel concerning the matter in dispute prior to the filing of the motion.
Every certification required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 37 and this rule
2

this case.

-

j

SO ORDERED, oZ3day of July, 2014.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

related to the efforts of the parties to resolve discovery or disclosure disputes
must describe with particularity the steps taken by all attorneys to resolve the
issues in dispute.
A "reasonable effort to confer" means more than mailing or faxing a letter to
the opposing party. It requires that the parties in good faith converse, confer,
compare views, consult, and deliberate, or in good faith attempt to do so.
D.Kan. Rule 37.2, cited in Schneider v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2014 WL 4749181 at * 1
(D. Kan. Sept. 24, 2014). This Court's Local Rule 26.5(c) reminds attorneys "that
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 37(a)(2) require a party seeking a protective order or
moving to compel discovery to certify that a good faith effort has been made to
resolve the dispute before coming to court." S.D.GA.LOc.R. 26.50 (emphasis
added). It does not extend to third parties. The "Kansas rule" does.
3