Mayo Clinic v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Filing 13

ORDER: (1) The Report and Recommendation [No. 14-cv-3844, ECF No. 12 ; No. 14-mc-63, ECF No. 12 ] is ADOPTED. (2) The Mayo Clinic's Petition to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum [No. 14-cv-3844, ECF No. 1 ] is DENIED. (3) The Mayo Clinic's a ction [No. 14-cv-3844] is DISMISSED. (4) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Application for Order to Show Cause Why a Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced [No. 14-mc-63, ECF No. 1 ] is GRANTED. (5) The subpoena is ENFORCED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 7, 2015. (CBC)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Mayo Clinic, Petitioner, No. 14-cv-3844 (JNE/TNL) ORDER v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Respondent. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner, No. 14-mc-63 (JNE/TNL) ORDER v. Mayo Clinic, Respondent. These two matters concern the enforceability of a subpoena duces tecum issued to the Mayo Clinic by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the course of its investigation of a charge of employment discrimination. They are now before the Court on a Report and Recommendation in which the United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Mayo Clinic’s Petition to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum be denied, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Application for Order to Show Cause Why a Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced be granted, and the subpoena at issue be enforced. The Mayo Clinic did not object to the Report and Recommendation and, after conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court now adopts it. 1 Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [No. 14-cv-3844, ECF No. 12; No. 14-mc-63, ECF No. 12] is ADOPTED. 2. The Mayo Clinic’s Petition to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum [No. 14-cv-3844, ECF No. 1] is DENIED. 3. The Mayo Clinic’s action [No. 14-cv-3844] is DISMISSED. 4. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Application for Order to Show Cause Why a Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced [No. 14-mc-63, ECF No. 1] is GRANTED. 5. The subpoena is ENFORCED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: August 7, 2015 s/Joan N. Ericksen JOAN N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?