Nalls v. Napolean

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING 63 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENYATTA NALLS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.: 11-12670
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

BENNY N. NAPOLEAN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA [R. 63]
Plaintiff Kenyatta Nalls, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this
suit in 2011 against Wayne County Jail and a number of its employees
(including nurses, correction officers and others), alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. After sua sponte dismissing one defendant, the Court
ordered service on the remaining defendants. [R. 5]. Service was
executed and the remaining defendants answered the complaint. [R. 8].
The case remained dormant until 2013, when the Court ordered Nalls to
identify previously unidentified defendants, imposed a deadline for Rule
12(b)(6) motions, and granted a motion to take Nalls’s deposition. [R. 10,
11, 12, 13]. However, no scheduling order was issued at this time.
Through additional discovery, Nalls learned of the identity of the

unidentified defendants, and moved after obtaining additional time, filed an
amended complaint on January 6, 2015, properly identifying all defendants.
[R. 22, 28, 39, 40, 42]. The following day the case was reassigned to the
undersigned for all pretrial matters. After sua sponte dismissing certain
defendants, the Court ordered service of the amended complaint on the
remaining unserved defendants. [R. 48, 50].
On February 20, 2015, the remaining defendants (“Defendants”)
moved to dismiss Nalls’s complaint or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment, relying, in part, on his medical records from the time he was in
Wayne County Jail. [R. 56]. Nalls sought and received an extension of
time to respond to that motion, and his response is due on May 11, 2015.
[R. 62]. In the interim, on March 12, 2015, Nalls issued a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 45 subpoena to third-party Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”), seeking his medical records for the period after his
transfer to MDOC from Wayne County Jail. [R. 63-1]. Defendants, who
were allegedly not served with a copy of the subpoena, were alerted to its
existence by MDOC, and now move to quash it on the grounds that
discovery has “effectively” closed and that it would not lead to the discovery
of relevant evidence. [R. 63].
Generally, only the party or person to whom a subpoena is directed
2

has standing to move to quash it. Sys. Prods. & Solutions v. Scramlin, No.
13-14947, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109389, at *20, 2014 WL 3894385 (E.D.
Mich. Aug. 8, 2014). This is true unless the party moving to quash
demonstrates some “personal interest or claim of privilege” in the
information sought. Mann v. Univ. of Cincinnati, Nos. 95-3195; 95-3292,
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 12482, at *12-13, 1997 WL 280188 (6th Cir. May 27,
1997) citing 9A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 2459 (1995). Defendants do not assert that they have a
personal interest or claim of privilege in Nalls’s MDOC medical records,
and thus they do not have standing under Rule 45 to challenge the
relevancy of the information sought by the MDOC subpoena.
However, given the grounds asserted, the Court will construe
Defendants’ motion as one to limit discovery, and find that the Defendants
have standing to object on that ground. See e.g. Thorn v. Novartis Pharm.
Corp., No. 11-373, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173959, at *5-7, 2013 WL
6499473 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2013) (construing motion to quash thirdparty subpoena as one to limit discovery, and plaintiff had standing to
assert that argument.). Nevertheless, Defendants’ motion is without merit.
Defendants argue only that discovery “effectively” closed in
November 2014. [R. 63, PgID 536]. However, despite this case’s long
3

history, no scheduling order was ever issued, and thus no date set for the
conclusion of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2). In the absence of
such an order, Nalls’ subpoena cannot be deemed untimely. Moreover,
since Nalls’ amended complaint adding new defendants was not filed until
January 2015, [R. 42], Defendants’ contention that discovery should
effectively be closed is without merit. 1
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to quash.
[63].

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The Court will schedule a conference to establish a scheduling order
forthwith.
4

1

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 22, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

5