McCrohan v. Uxbridge Police Association et al

Filing 54

Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ORDER entered granting 46 MOTION for Protective Order by David Bergeron, Josiah Morisette. Motion treated as a Motion to Quash, and, Motion ALLOWED. (Belpedio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

TARA McCROHAN,
Plaintiff,

v.
UXBRIDGE POLICE ASSOCIATION, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-40232-TSH

ORDER
October 4, 2013
Hennessy, M.J.
By Order of Reference dated August 23, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
(Docket #41), this matter was referred to me for a ruling on Defendants Josiah Morisette1 and
David Bergeron’s (hereinafter “the Defendants”) Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoenas.2
(Docket #46). Defendants seek an order relieving the Uxbridge Police Department from having
to produce documents responsive to the Plaintiff Tara McCrohan’s Subpoena to Produce
Documents, dated June 18, 2013, and Revised Subpoena to Produce Documents, dated July 8,
2013. McCrohan has filed a response (Docket #50) and this matter is now ripe for adjudication.
Pursuant to a scheduling order entered on December 7, 2012, fact discovery was to end
on April 1, 2013. (Docket #22). On April 30, 2013, the Court extended the fact discovery

1

In the motion, Defendant Josiah Morisette is referred to as “Isaiah Morisette.” This appears to be a typographical
error.

2

The Defendants style their motion as a Motion for Protective Order. The Court finds this title somewhat
unworkable as the motion is not technically a motion for a protective order but rather a motion to quash a subpoena.

period for sixty days until July 1, 2013. (Docket #24). The Court emphasized that this extension
was “only to complete existing discovery requests, [n]o new discovery.” (Id.).
The subpoenas duces tecum at issue are dated June 18, 2013 (Docket #46-1) and July 8,
2013 (Docket #46-2). Both seek the following documents:
1.

Any and all policies, manuals, guidelines, handbooks, and/or any other
documents used or referenced in Isaiah Morisette’s or David Bergeron’s
capacity as President of Local, Uxbridge, 123.

2.

Copies of any and all grievances filed by Isaiah Morisette and/or David
Bergeron as a member of Uxbridge Local, 123.

3.

All employee handbooks, personnel handbooks, personnel policies,
guidelines, and/or documents of any other nature or type that refer or
relate to the terms, conditions, standards, and/or rules of Isaiah Morisette’s
and/or David Bergeron’s employment as a police officer with the
Uxbridge Police Department.

Defendants assert that the subpoenas should be quashed because these records were not
subpoenaed prior to April 30, 2013, and, therefore, these were not “existing discovery requests.”
(Docket #46 at 1).
McCrohan argues that these subpoenas request records that the defendants had agreed to
provide prior to April 30, 2013, and, therefore, do not constitute new discovery. (Docket #50 at
1). As evidence thereof, McCrohan attaches as Exhibit A to her Response, requests to produce
documents that she previously served on Defendants. (Docket #50-1). Defendants responded to
several of these requests by stating that they would permit McCrohan to copy and inspect records
on site at the Uxbridge Police Department.

(Docket #50-2).

McCrohan asserts that the

documents sought by these subpoenas were not new or additional discovery; instead, the
subpoenas are a different method of conducting discovery that was already requested and already
agreed to by Defendants. (Docket #50 at 1-2).

2

The Court does not find McCrohan’s argument persuasive. The subpoenas at issue are
dated after April 30, 2013. The Court was clear in its order that the discovery period was
extended for existing requests only. While Defendants may have previously allowed McCrohan
to access the information sought, Defendants did not agree to bear the burden of producing the
information.

Nothing in this Order prevents McCrohan from inspecting and copying the

responsive documents at the Uxbridge Police Department, as previously agreed to by
Defendants. If McCrohan experiences difficulty obtaining the information she requested prior to
April 30, 2013, she may file a motion to compel at that time.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Quash is ALLOWED.

/S/ David H. Hennessy
David H. Hennessy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3