BENSON et al v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al

Filing 92

ORDER - This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Non-Party Indiana Board of Law Examiners ("the Board"). 83 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. SEE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/6/2025. (JRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LEON BENSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
INDIANA BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS,
Interested Party.

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

No. 1:24-cv-00839-JPH-MJD

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Non-Party
Indiana Board of Law Examiners ("the Board"). [Dkt. 83.] For the reasons set forth below, the
motion is GRANTED.
Defendants have served a subpoena on the Board seeking the following:
Any bar application materials containing identifying information for Timothy J.
Miller, Attorney No. 19853-49, including but not limited to bar applications,
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, employment
history, employment references, character references or other similar identifying
information. This request specifically excludes sensitive, confidential or
proprietary information, such as application essays, internal decision-making
documents, internal notes or comments, examinations, examination results,
appeals, or other sensitive information.
[Dkt. 83-1.] The Board moves to quash the subpoena on the ground that the information
requested is protected as confidential pursuant to Indiana State Rules for Admission and
Discipline, Rule 19, Section 1 ("Rule 19"), which provides that:

All information and all records obtained and maintained by the Board of Law
Examiners in the performance of its duty under these rules and as delegated by
the Supreme Court of Indiana shall be confidential, except as otherwise provided
by these rules, or by order of (or as otherwise authorized by) the Supreme Court
of Indiana.
While Timothy J. Miller is highly likely to have information relevant to the claims and defenses
in this case, and the information sought by the subpoena may assist Defendants in locating Mr.
Miller, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) provides that the Court "must quash or
modify a subpoena that . . . requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no
exception or waiver applies." Accordingly, given that the requested information clearly is
protected from disclosure pursuant to Rule 19 absent authorization from the Supreme Court of
Indiana, the motion to quash is GRANTED. This order does not prevent Defendants from
seeking authorization for release of the information from the Supreme Court of Indiana.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6 JAN 2025

Distribution:
Service will be made electronically on all
ECF-registered counsel of record via email
generated by the Court's ECF system.