Ford v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER VACATING 42 Order on Motion to Continue, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, and DENYING 34 MOTION to Continue filed by Jonathan G Ford and 36 MOTION Request Court Grant his Petition for Power of Subpoena filed by Jonathan G Ford. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 1/27/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JONATHAN G. FORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-342-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the “Motion to Continue Sayed Motions” (Doc. 34) and
the Motion for Subpoena (Doc. 36) filed by Plaintiff, Jonathan G. Ford, on August 31, 2015.

On

November 12, 2015, this Court denied the motions on the grounds that “discovery in this matter is
stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of
exhaustion of administrative remedies” (Doc. 42). That Order was entered in error and is hereby
VACATED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). The Motions are nonetheless
DENIED for the reasons set forth below:
Plaintiff requests subpoenas in order to acquire grievances that he submitted related to the
claims in this case. The Clerk must issue subpoenas on request of a party. FED.R.CIV.P. 45(a)(3).
However, the Court has an obligation to protect persons subject to a subpoena and may preview
subpoenas in order to ensure that the Court’s subpoena power is not being abused. FED.R.CIV.P.
26(b)(2)(C), 45(d)(1); Marozsan v. United States, 90 F.3d 1284, 1290 (7th Cir. 1996). While
Plaintiff does not specify in his motion to whom he would direct his subpoena, he can only seek
copies of his grievances from the prison where he was housed or the Administrative Review
Board. Such a subpoena, however, would be duplicative because the information/documents
Page 1 of 2

sought have been produced in this case.
In this Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 23), Defendant was directed, by August 12, 2015,
to provide “grievances, along with any responses or other related materials, such as grievance logs
and counselor notes” to Plaintiff along with other relevant documentation. In order to comply
with that Order, Defendants, themselves, subpoenaed the documents from both Sheridan
Correctional Center (where Plaintiff currently resides) and the Administrative Review Board.
Sheridan CC indicated that there were no grievance records as of June 22, 2015 (Doc. 31-1, p. 8)
but did provide Plaintiff’s Cumulative Counseling Records which would show some information
regarding grievances. The Administrative Review Board provided 14 pages of documentation
including various grievances related to the issues in this case (Doc. 31-2, pp. 1-15). These
documents were all attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of
exhaustion (Doc. 31).
In light of the production of the very documents that Plaintiff would seek via a subpoena,
the issuance of such a subpoena would be unnecessarily duplicative of Defendants’ actions.
Issuing the subpoena may also open the Plaintiff up to sanctions for imposing an undue burden on
a third party which would be required to search for and produce documents that already have been
filed in this litigation. It is highly unlikely that any such subpoena would garner additional
documents related to the grievances that Plaintiff submitted in this matter. Therefore, pursuant to
Rule 26(b)(2)(C), no subpoenas, related to grievances, shall be issued by the Clerk of Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 27, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2