Jemme J. Jenkins, Individually, and Administrator of the Estate of Jimmie Lee Alexander, Sr. v. Corizon Health Inc. et al

Filing 336

ORDER granting 327 Motion to Quash and granting Plaintiff's 329 Motion for leave to read Ms. Leach's deposition at trial. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 01/25/2022. (jlh)

Case 4:18-cv-00099-WTM-CLR Document 336 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

JEMME J. JENKINS, Individually,
and JULIANNE GLISSON,
Administrator of the Estate of

Jimmie L. Alexander, Sr.;

Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. CV418-099

V.

CORIZON HEALTH INC., a Delaware

Corporation; GUY AUGUSTIN,
M.D.; VICTORIA NEILSER, LPN;
MARK DAMBACH, LPN; WANDA

WILLIAMS, Lieutenant; and
DESMOND BRYANT, Corporal;
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the

Court is

Movant Hester

Leach's

Motion

to Quash

Subpoena. (Doc. 327.) On January 6, 2022, Plaintiffs served Ms.
Leach with a trial subpoena compelling her to attend the trial in
this case

set to

begin

on

February

14, 2022, in

Statesboro,

Georgia. (Doc. 327, Attach. 1 at 5 7; Doc. 328 at 1-2.) In her
motion, Ms. Leach requests that the Court quash the subpoena
because attendance at trial would subject her to undue burden and
the parties can read her deposition testimony into the record at
trial. (Doc. 327 at 4-5.) Inter alia, Ms. Leach contends that she

lives in Dekalb County, Georgia, over 204 miles away from the
Statesboro Courthouse and that attendance at trial would require

Case 4:18-cv-00099-WTM-CLR Document 336 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 3

her absence from Emory Hospital, which is currently short-staffed.
(Doc. 327, Attach. 1 at

3, 12.) Plaintiffs do not object to the

subpoena being quashed but move the Court to allow the reading of
Ms. Leach's deposition at trial. (Doc. 328 at 1-3.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iv),

the Court is required to grant a timely motion to quash a subpoena

that

^'subjects

a

person

to

undue

burden." Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

45(d)(3)(A)(iv). To determine whether a subpoena creates an undue

burden, a court ''balance[s] the interests served by demanding

compliance with the subpoena against the interests furthered by

quashing it." Jordan v. Comm'r, Miss. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d
1322, 1337 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting 9A Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2463.1 (3d ed.

2019)). Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4)(B)

provides that a party "may use for any purpose the deposition of
a witness, whether or not a party, if the court finds:"
that the witness is more than 100 miles from the place

of hearing or trial or is outside the United States,
unless it appears that the witness's absence was
procured by the party offering the deposition[.]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)(B).

After careful consideration, the Court finds that requiring

Ms. Leach to attend trial would subject her to an undue burden.

The

Court

recognizes that Ms.

Leach

would

incur

substantial

expenses to travel to trial from Dekalb County and that Ms. Leach

Case 4:18-cv-00099-WTM-CLR Document 336 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 3

would be forced to take leave from her job as a nurse at Emory

Hospital, which is currently understaffed. Furthermore, the Court
finds no prejudice will result from quashing Ms. Leach's subpoena
because Ms. Leach's deposition testimony may be read into the

record

at

trial

pursuant

to

foregoing, Ms. Leach's motion

Rule

32(a)(4)(B).

Based

on

the

{Doc. 327) is GRANTED, and the

subpoena compelling her attendance at trial in this case is
QUASHED. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for leave to read Ms.
Leach's deposition at trial (Doc. 328) is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED this ^J^day of January 2022.

WILLIAM T. MOORE^JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA