COLEMAN v. CURRY et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting 45 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/5/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS
WAYDE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY CURRY, REBECCA MEYER,
PAUL R CIESIELSKI, INDIANAPOLIS
METROPOLITAN POLICE, DENNY
RANDALL JASON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-1256-TWP-DKL

ORDER GRANTING VERIFIED MOTION TO QUASH
OF NON-PARTY MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
This matter is before the Court on the motion to quash filed by non-party
Marion County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) (Dkt. 45).
The Plaintiff’s Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information or Objects or to
Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action dated September 17, 2012, (“the
subpoena”) requests production and inspection of the following:
inspection of holding cells, copies of all electronically stored
information in regards to Wayne Coleman, copies of all medical records
in regards to Wayde Coleman, inspection of kitchen, inspection of all
release holding cells; all inspections is subject to be photographed by
Mr. Coleman; he will be using a Canon EOS 60D.
(Subpoena, attached as Exhibit A, Dkt. 45-1). The Sheriff’s Office objects to the
subpoena to the extent it seeks to make inspections and take photographs of the
Marion County Jail kitchen and all release holding cells. The Sheriff’s Office argues
that the subpoena is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.1 Specifically, the plaintiff’s claims do not allege
any actionable conduct or allegations that relate to the holding cells or the kitchen
The Sheriff’s Office reports that it gathered and produced to Plaintiff all medical records for periods
of incarceration in 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 as requested on November 30, 2012.
1

of the Marion County Jail. In addition, the holding cells and the kitchen in the
Marion County Jail are in 24-hour use to house and serve prisoners. The Sheriff’s
Office asserts that the inspection and photography the plaintiff seeks will
compromise the security and orderly operation of the holding cells and the jail
kitchen. In response, the plaintiff argues that the pictures will show the conditions
of the jail he was subjected to and go to his proof of damages.
Under the circumstances set forth above, the Court finds the subpoena
seeking inspection and photography of jail facilities imposes an undue burden upon
the Sheriff’s Office. The plaintiff has not shown a relationship between inspection
and photography of the Jail facilities and any of the claims set forth in his Amended
Complaint. If appropriate, the plaintiff may testify as to his personal experience at
the Jail. The motion to quash (Dkt. 45) is GRANTED and the subpoena is
quashed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

04/05/2013
Date: _____________________

Distribution:
Wayde Coleman
11313 Lynchburg Way
Indianapolis, IN 46229
Electronically registered counsel

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana