Skarzynski v. Holder et al
Filing
39
OPINION AND ORDER granting 20 Motion to Quash Subpoenas and orders that the subpoenas served by Plaintiff be QUASHED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/2/14. cc: Skarzynski (mc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ALEKSANDER SKARZYNSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cause No.: 2:14-CV-172-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas [DE 20], filed
on October 3, 2014. Plaintiff filed a response and a sixty-page memorandum in support on
November 3, 2014. Defendants filed a reply on November 10, 2014.
Before reaching the motion to Quash, the Court considers Defendant’s request that
Plaintiff’s memorandum in support be stricken. Response briefs may not exceed twenty-five pages
unless there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” why a longer brief is required. N.D. Ind.
L.R. 7-1(e). No such reasons are apparent to the Court. On the contrary, a few pages of briefing
would have been sufficient since there is only one issue in this motion and neither the facts nor the
law are complex. The supporting memorandum, instead of providing a reasoned response to
Defendant’s motion, goes on at great length about topics such as game theory, John Locke, legal
thinking, algorithms in medicine and law, etc., etc. The Court accordingly strikes it. See McMasters
v. United States, 260 F.3d 814, 818 (7th Cir. 2001) (explaining that pro se status does not excuse
failure to comply with procedural rules). In the future, moreover, Plaintiff should confine his
briefing to the issues at hand.
I. Background
In early August 2014, pro se Plaintiff issued a subpoena to Good Samaritan Hospital in
Downers Grove, Illinois, seeking the medical file of a patient, S.W. Both the hospital and the patient
are non-parties. Counsel for Defendants then sent Plaintiff a letter explaining that the subpoenas
were discovery and that the request was premature since the parties had not yet conferred pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Defendants represent that, after receiving this letter,
Plaintiff sent Defense counsel an email stating that he would withdraw the subpoena. On August 14,
2014, he filed a motion to withdraw subpoena. This Court denied that motion on September 11,
2014, explaining that the motion did not point to this Court’s involvement in any subpoena.
On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff issued two more subpoenas seeking S.W.’s medical records
from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in Baltimore, Maryland, and from Community
Care Network in Munster, Indiana. According to Defendants, neither of these subpoenas included
a release or consent from S.W. authorizing the release of her medical records.
On October 22, 2014, this Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion that discovery be
stayed in this case pending resolution of their Motion to Dismiss.
II. Analysis
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that parties may not “seek discovery from any
source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).
Defendants point out that no such conference has taken place, contending that the subpoenas are
hence premature. Plaintiff responds that he needs the medical records to support a qui tam action
he wishes to pursue, asking that the Motion to Quash be denied in light of the provisions of Federal
Rule of Procedure 27.
Plaintiff’s objection is not well taken. While there are a few exceptions to the requirements
of Rule 26(f), none appear to apply here. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Moreover, Rule 27 deals with
depositions to perpetuate testimony before an action is filed or pending appeal, not subpoenas for
medical records in a case that has already been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 27. The Court agrees with
Defendants that these subpoenas are thus premature and should be quashed.
III. Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas [DE 20] and orders that the
subpoenas served by Plaintiff be QUASHED.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2014.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
All counsel of record
Plaintiff, pro se
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?