Burke et al v. USF Reddaway, Inc.

Filing 71

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 1/14/2014 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Douglas Rochen; Def Counsel: Austin Oyler (Telephonically) and Jacey Prupas; FTR #: 1:32:51 p.m. - 2:52:03 p.m.; Time of Hearing: 1:30 p.m.; Courtroom: 2. Defendant's 49 Motion to Quash is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See attached minutes of proceedings order for details. Defendant's 60 Motion to Quash is GRANTED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JAMES and ALYSSA BURKE,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
USF REDDAWAY, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

3:13-cv-00017-LRH-WGC
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
January 14, 2014

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

Katie Lynn Ogden

REPORTER:

FTR

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): Douglas Rochen
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): Austin Oyler (Telephonically) and Jacey Prupas
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion Hearing
1:32 p.m. Court convenes.
I.

Preliminary Matters

(A.) The parties are advised certain documents submitted in this matter contain personal
identifies which are prohibited by Special Order 109. Counsel for plaintiff and defendant are to
contact the courtroom administrator via email no later than the close of business January 15,
2014, and identify the docket number(s) and page number(s) in which documents contain
personal identifiers. The court will then attempt to redact the documents to comply with Special
Order 109.
(B.) The record is clarified by Defendant’s counsel Austin Oyler that, although
Steve Kytle is not a named defendant in this matter, Mr. Oyler does represent him and Mr. Kytle
joins in defendant’s Motion to Quash (Doc. # 49 and # 60 ) the subpoenas seeking his medical
records.
II.

Defendant’s Motion to Quash (Doc. ## 49 and 60)
The court and parties address Defendant’s two motion to quash requests (Doc. # 49 and

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:13-cv-00017-LRH-WGC
Date: January 14, 2014
Page 2
601). After hearing argument the court rules as follows:
Defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Dr. Jeffrey Sanders (Doc. # 60) is
GRANTED. The court believes the records in which plaintiff is seeking by serving a subpoena
on Jeffery Sanders, M.D. are beyond the scope and boundaries of relevance in this matter. The
court notes that, even if it were to entertain a review of the Dr. Sanders records in camera, the
outcome of that review would more than likely be similar to the court’s current position
regarding relevance. To the extent plaintiff objects to defendant’s motion to quash based on
untimeliness, the court exercises it discretion in finding it appropriate to quash the subpoena
served on Dr. Sanders.
Defendant’s Motion to Quash (Doc. # 49) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
To the extent plaintiff issued subpoenas to Lenscrafters and Dr. Mark Mannis, these
subpoenas are hereby quashed and defendant’s motion to quash is granted.
To the extent Plaintiff is seeking information relating to any treatment Mr. Kytle had
concerning eye care, this information shall be produced and defendant’s motion to quash is
denied. However, the medical records produced by Dr. Vazeen shall be submitted for an in
camera review by the court. Defense counsel shall secure a medical authorization from
Mr. Kytle and secure the records from Dr. Mehdi Vazeen. A complete record shall be produced
to the court. Defense counsel shall bates stamp the records prior to hand delivering them in a
sealed envelope to chambers. Defense counsel are instructed to file a notice with the court once
they have produced the documents for the in camera inspection.
The court will determine what documents are appropriate to produce to plaintiff and
whether redaction(s) are necessary. If the court finds it necessary to schedule a hearing regarding
the records, the court will schedule a date and time that is convenient for all parties. The court
notes, depending on the outcome of the in camera review of the records, the discovery deadlines
(Doc. # 40) may need to be revised; which again, the court will address at a later time if
necessary.
2:52 p.m. Court adjourns.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

For purposes of this hearing, the court refers to both defendant’s Motion to Quash
(Doc. # 49) and Emergency Motion to Quash (Doc. # 52) collectively. The ruling as to Motion
to Quash (Doc. # 49) is synonymous to the Emergency Motion to Quash (Doc. # 52).

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:13-cv-00017-LRH-WGC
Date: January 14, 2014
Page 3
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk