Wallace v. Pharma Medica Research, Inc.

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: The motion is GRANTED to the extent that defendant Pharma Medica Research, Inc. shall respond to plaintiff's I nterrogatory Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and produce documents responsive to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents No. 4(a), by August 27, 2018. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. [Doc. 13]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by September 26, 2018, that alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts as to all defendants named therein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Case Management Order is vacated. [Doc. 10] Failure to comply timely and fully with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ( Response to Court due by 9/26/2018.). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/16/2018. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

IAN WALLACE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PHARMA MEDICA RESEARCH, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

No. 4:18-CV-396 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Ian Wallace’s Motion to Enforce Court Order and
Motion to Compel. Defendant Pharma Medica Research, Inc. (“PMRI”) has not responded to the
motion and the time to do so has passed. The Court normally rules on discovery motions only at its
monthly discovery motion docket, but reserves the right to issue a written ruling at its discretion.
In the instant case, the Court finds the motion to compel fully explains the issues in dispute and oral
argument is not needed to inform the Court’s ruling.
Background
Plaintiff Ian Wallace (“plaintiff”) participated in a research study at PMRI’s facility in St.
Charles, Missouri, that involved providing blood samples on several occasions. Plaintiff alleges the
blood samples were drawn by defendant’s employees and/or contractors (the “Unknown Persons”
defendants named in the complaint) acting within the course and scope of their employment or
agency relationship with PMRI, and as a result of their negligence, and the negligence of PMRI
itself, plaintiff contracted hepatitis C. Plaintiff filed this action on March 9, 2018, asserting
negligence claims against PMRI in Count I and negligence claims against the Unknown Persons in

Count II. Plaintiff alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
As of June 15, 2018, this case had been on file in excess of ninety days but plaintiff had not
filed proof of service on the Unknown Persons. See Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1
The Court on its own motion issued an order stating it is unable to determine whether diversity
jurisdiction exists in this case because the complaint is silent as to the citizenship of the Unknown
Persons defendants (Doc. 7 at 2), and that the complaint is procedurally defective as a result (id. at
2-3).
The Court stated:
Although the complaint asserts that the identities of the “Unknown Persons”
will be obtained in discovery, Complaint ¶¶ 5, 10, plaintiff has not sought leave of
Court to conduct discovery under Rule 26(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Rather than
dismissing plaintiff’s claims against the “Unknown Persons” on its own motion, or
dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the
Court will permit plaintiff to attempt to identify the “Unknown Persons” through
discovery. Plaintiff must then promptly amend his complaint to name the unknown
defendants and plead jurisdictional facts as to their citizenship.
Mem. and Order of June 15, 2018 at 3 (the “Order”). The Order granted plaintiff “leave to promptly
ascertain through appropriate discovery requests the identity of the ‘Unknown Persons’ defendants,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), and file proof of service upon them within sixty (60) days of the date
of this Order.” Id. The Court directed PMRI to cooperate with plaintiff in the discovery process,
and ordered plaintiff to promptly amend his complaint to add the individuals as parties after they are

1

Rule 4(m) provides in pertinent part, “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court–on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff–must dismiss the
action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.
But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for
an appropriate period.”
2

identified. Id. Plaintiff subsequently served nine interrogatories and eight requests for production
of documents on PMRI.
The Order authorized limited discovery related only to the issue of the Unknown Persons’
identities. This was because the parties had not yet conferred as required by Rule 26(f), see Rule
26(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., and because the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case is
uncertain. A federal court may not proceed in a case unless it has subject matter jurisdiction. See
Crawford v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001).
Discussion
A. Motion to Compel
1. Interrogatories
PMRI objects to interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 on the grounds that they seek
information “beyond the scope of discovery as provided by the Court’s Order” which allowed
discovery as to “the identity of individuals who may be potentially named as Defendants in the
lawsuit,” and “seek[] information which is protected by HIPAA and other confidentiality
provisions.” Objs. to Pl.’s Interrogatories (Pl. Ex. D.) PMRI objects to interrogatory No. 9 on the
basis that it is vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome.2 PMRI did not object to interrogatory
Nos. 3, 4, and 5, but did not answer those interrogatories.
The Court finds that plaintiff’s interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 seek information on topics
far beyond that authorized by the Order of June 15, 2018. For example, interrogatory No. 1 states,
“Identify each person by name, address (home, email work), telephone numbers (cell, home, work),

2

Interrogatory No. 9 states, “Identify all persons and/or entities that you feel fall within the
description of Unknown Persons in Count II of the complaint filed in this court.”
3

occupation, place of employment and dates of blood drawn by you for each person who tested
positive for hepatitis C who was in your study group(s) at your St. Charles location during the time
that plaintiff was present at said location.” The Order did not allow this type of wide-ranging
discovery, but instead specifically permitted limited discovery intended to reveal the names of the
Unknown Persons defendants, and to permit the Court to determine whether subject matter
jurisdiction exists in this case. The Court also finds that interrogatory No. 9 is vague, overbroad,
and unduly burdensome because it requires speculation by PMRI.
Plaintiff’s interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, and 5 seek information relevant to the identity of the
Unknown Persons defendants, and PMRI should have answered those interrogatories.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel will denied as to interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and PMRI shall answer those
interrogatories within ten days of the date of this Order.
2. Request for Production of Documents
PMRI objects to plaintiff’s request for production of documents Nos. 1 through 7 on the
grounds that they seek information that is not relevant to the identify of the Unknown Persons
defendants and beyond the scope of the Court’s Order. PMRI objects to request for production No.
8 as being vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome.
The Court finds that requests for production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 5, 6, 7, and 8(b) do not seek
documents related to the identity of the Unknown Persons and are far beyond the scope of discovery
allowed by the Order. Request for production No. 8(a) is vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome
as it requires speculation by PMRI.

4

Interrogatory No. 4(a) seeks “[a]ny and all records which set forth the names, last known
addresses, last known email addresses, telephone (cell, work, home) number for: (a) each of your
employees who were present and whose job duties included drawing blood during any of Plaintiff’s
participations in your testing at your St. Charles facility.” This request seeks relevant documents
and PMRI will be ordered to produce responsive documents.
B. Jurisdictional Issues
As stated in the Order of June 15, 2018, “Courts have an independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction be established
as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States
and is inflexible and without exception.” Kessler v. National Enters., Inc., 347 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th
Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and quoted case omitted). Statutes conferring diversity jurisdiction are
to be strictly construed, Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992), and the burden
of proving all jurisdictional facts is on the party asserting jurisdiction, here the plaintiff. See McNutt
v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).
28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and
defendants. Buckley v. Control Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97, n.6 (8th Cir. 1991). To establish
complete diversity of citizenship, a complaint must include factual allegations of each party’s state
of citizenship, including allegations of any corporate party’s state of incorporation and principal
place of business. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), (c)(1); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 215 n.1,
216 (8th Cir. 1987).

5

Here, the Court cannot determine whether complete diversity of citizenship exists for two
reasons. As stated in the Order, the complaint is silent as to the identity and citizenship of the
“Unknown Persons” defendants. In addition, although the complaint alleges that PMRI is a
Canadian corporation, it does not allege facts concerning PMRI’s principal place of business.
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint by September 26, 2018 that alleges sufficient jurisdictional
facts as to all of the defendants included therein.
“In every federal case the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to the
merits of other legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d 1046, 1050
(8th Cir. 2006). Because plaintiff has not established that subject matter jurisdiction exists, the
Court will vacate the Case Management Order as having been improvidently issued. A new case
management order will be issued once jurisdiction has been established.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part: The motion is GRANTED to the extent that defendant Pharma Medica Research,
Inc. shall respond to plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and produce documents responsive
to plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 4(a), by August 27, 2018. The motion is
DENIED in all other respects. [Doc. 13].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by September
26, 2018, that alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts as to all defendants named therein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Case Management Order is vacated. [Doc. 10]

6

Failure to comply timely and fully with this Order will result in dismissal of this action
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 16th day of August, 2018.

7