Raju v. Murphy et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying in part and finding as moot in part 68 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum and For Sanctions, and denying 87 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 7/19/18 (RBM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
SESHADRI RAJU, M.D., P.A.
vs.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-357-CWR-FKB

ERIN MURPHY, M.D.

DEFENDANT
AND

ERIN MURPHY, M.D .

COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

vs.
SESHADRI RAJU, M.D., P.A

COUNTER-DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Erin Murphy, M.D.:
a motion to quash and for sanctions [68] and a supplemental motion for sanctions [87]. Dr. Murphy
originally challenged six subpoenas issued by Dr. Raju to purported former employers of Dr.
Murphy. See motion [57]. In response, Dr. Raju withdrew four of the six subpoenas at issue. See
[64] at 3, fn. 1. Dr. Murphy filed a second motion to quash the remaining two subpoenas [68]. She
also moved for sanctions, contending that the remaining two subpoenas lacked “substantial
justification” under Fed R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B). [68] at 3. Dr. Raju filed notices of withdrawal with
regard to all six subpoenas at issue on June 26, 2018. See [80]-[85]. Dr. Murphy acknowledges
that motion [68] is now moot to the extent that it requests any subpoenas be quashed. [87] at 3.
However, she contends that sanctions are appropriate. Id.
“The district courts wield their various sanction powers at their broad discretion.” Topalian
v. Ehrman, 3 F.3d 931, 934 (5th Cir.1993). Fed R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1) requires that an attorney certify
that to the best of that person’s knowledge, information, and belief . . .

(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:
(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law,
or for establishing new law;
(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering
the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy,
and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B). “If a certification violates this rule without substantial justification,
the court, on motion or on its own, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party
on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3).
Having considered the parties’ submissions and the fact that Dr. Raju’s counsel withdrew
the subpoenas, the Court finds that sanctions should not be imposed. Accordingly, Motion [68] is
denied as moot with regard to the request to quash any subpoenas, and is denied as to the request
for sanctions. Motion [87] is also denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th of July, 2018.

/s F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2