Dumas v. Hurley Medical Center et al

Filing 123

ORDER granting 112 Non-Party Flint Civil Service Commission's Motion to Quash. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LOWANA SHANELL DUMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-12661

v.
HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER GRANTING NONPARTY FLINT CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION’S MOTION TO QUASH
Before the court is nonparty Flint Civil Service Commission’s (“FCSC”) motion to
quash a subpoena served by Plaintiff Lowana Dumas.1 Plaintiff filed a response on
November 29, 2011. The court held a telephone conference with counsel for the parties
and nonparty FCSC on December 7, 2011, during which counsel for Plaintiff and FCSC
agreed that the court would grant the motion without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to serve
additional discovery requests, if needed, on nonparty FCSC prior to the conclusion of
discovery.
Plaintiff served FCSC with a subpoena dated November 8, 2011, directing FCSC
to produce “copies of Civil Sevice [sic] Commission records regarding personnel
matters at Hurley Medical Center between 01/00 and 11/11.” (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 1.) In its
motion, FCSC indicates that compliance with the subpoena would cost approximately
$20,000 and would require the Commission’s only two employees to work full time for
1

At the time the subpoena was served, Plaintiff was proceeding pro se. After
service of the subpoena, however, attorney Racine Miller accepted an appointment as
pro bono counsel and filed an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff on November 23, 2011.

multiple weeks to satisfy the subpoena. (FCSC’s Mot. at ¶¶ 4-5.) Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 45, where a nonparty objects to a subpoena, the court “must protect
a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from significant expense resulting
from compliance.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B)(ii). Here, FCSC has shown that
compliance with the subpoena would cause undue burden on the Commission.
Plaintiff’s counsel, presumably recognizing the extraordinary scope of the subpoena,
informed the court that “upon review of the case file, [she] will be in a better position to
ascertain with more specificity and particularity which documents under the control of
the Commission may be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and will gladly narrow the scope of
the Subpoena accordingly.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 3.) Therefore, the court will grant the motion
without prejudice to the right of Plaintiff to subsequently serve, if the need arises, a
discovery request upon FCSC prior to the conclusion of discovery. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that nonparty Flint Civil Service Commission’s motion to quash
[Dkt. # 112] is GRANTED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 15, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 15, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa G. Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\10-12661.DUMAS.Grant.FCSC.Mot.Quash.jrc.wpd

2