Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated et al

Filing 117

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 90 Objection DENIED to the extent Plaintiff requests an order quashing all 23 subpoenas. Plaintiff's 90 Objection is GRANTED to the extent that the subpoenas duces tecum that were served on all 23 non-parties shall be modified to request medical records for the time period Quest and Hiatt have a reasonable good faith belief that the custodian has relevant and discoverable information. A protective order is entered precluding the Defendants fr om using any of the records or information received from the custodians of records at issue in Plaintiff's objections and this order for any purpose unrelated to this litigation.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections that the subpoenas, as modified, request privileged medical information are OVERRULED, the court having found that Plaintiff put Tommy Morrison's health, condition(s), diagnosis, and treatment from 02/10/1996, to the date of his death in 2013 at issue in this case. Quest shall have until 03/17/2016 to serve Plaintiff with a supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure identifying the Quest laboratories from whom information about the late Mr. Morrison was requested. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 03/03/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

PATRICIA HARDING MORRISON,

8
9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:14-cv-01207-RFB-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED,
et al.,
Defendants.

13

The court set a hearing for Tuesday, March 1, 2016, on Plaintiff’s Objection to Discovery

14

(Dkt. #90) after entering an Order (Dkt. #102) requiring Defendants Quest Diagnostics and Hiatt

15

to file a supplement, and giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to file a response.

16

The court’s written Order (Dkt. #102) identifies in detail the issues before the court. In

17

short, Defendants Quest and Hiatt served 23 subpoena duces tecum on no-parties requesting

18

broad medical and other records concerning Plaintiff’s late husband, Tommy Morrison. The

19

subpoenas were extremely broad and contained no temporal limitation. Plaintiff objected to the

20

subpoenas on various grounds summarized in the court’s prior order. The court construed her

21

objection as a motion to quash or modify under Rule 45.

22

Plaintiff’s objection but did not provide the court with any information of how the individuals

23

and entities on whom the subpoenas were served were believed to have relevant and discoverable

24

information. The court therefore required the Defendants to supplement their responses to

25

provide this information, and gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file a response. A temporary

26

protective order was entered pending a decision on the merits.

The Defendants responded to

27

Defendants Quest and Hiatt filed a Supplemental Response (Dkt. #107) as ordered.

28

Plaintiff filed her Response (Dkt. #109). The court carefully reviewed and considered the
1

1

moving and responsive papers and directed a number of questions to counsel for Quest at the

2

hearing. Counsel for Quest confirmed that Quest inquired of various laboratories affiliated with

3

it throughout the country, where Mr. Morrison was known to have resided, if they had any

4

records pertaining to Mr. Morrison. Subpoenas were directed to those labs at which a positive

5

response was received. Additional information was gleaned from public records, for example

6

press reports of where Mr. Morrison applied for boxing licenses, and a book about his life.

7

The court is satisfied that the subpoenas were directed to non-parties believed to have

8

relevant and discoverable information within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(1). However, the

9

subpoenas are overbroad in requesting documents and medical records with no temporal

10

limitation. Defendants are reminded that pursuant to Rule 26(g) by signing a discovery request

11

an attorney certifies that the request is not interposed for an improper purpose and is “neither

12

unduly burdensome nor expensive considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case,

13

the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.” The court will

14

modify the subpoenas to insert temporal limitations consistent with Quest’s information about

15

the timeframe for which each custodian is believed to have discoverable information.

16

The court also directed counsel for Quest and Hiatt to serve Plaintiff with a supplemental

17

Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure identifying all of the Quest laboratories from whom information was

18

requested pertaining to Mr. Morrison. The supplemental response shall fully comply with

19

Quest’s obligations under Rule 26(a)(1).

20

IT IS ORDERED that:

21

1. Plaintiff’s Objection (Dkt. #90) is DENIED to the extent Plaintiff requests an order

22

quashing all 23 subpoenas.

23

2. Plaintiff’s Objection (Dkt. #90) is GRANTED to the extent that the subpoenas duces

24

tecum that were served on all 23 non-parties shall be modified to request medical

25

records for the time period Quest and Hiatt have a reasonable good faith belief that

26

the custodian has relevant and discoverable information.

27
28
2

1

3. A protective order is entered precluding the Defendants from using any of the records

2

or information received from the custodians of records at issue in Plaintiff’s

3

objections and this order for any purpose unrelated to this litigation.

4

4. Plaintiff’s objections that the subpoenas, as modified, request privileged medical

5

information are OVERRULED, the court having found that Plaintiff put Tommy

6

Morrison’s health, condition(s), diagnosis, and treatment from February 10, 1996, to

7

the date of his death in 2013 at issue in this case.

8

5. Quest shall have until March 17, 2016 to serve Plaintiff with a supplemental Rule

9

26(a)(1) disclosure identifying the Quest laboratories from whom information about

10

the late Mr. Morrison was requested. The supplemental disclosure shall disclose all

11

of the information required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A).

12

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2016.

13
14
PEGGY A. LEEN
PEGGY A. LEEN
GY LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3