Fisher v. Glanz et al

Filing 82

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary ; granting 80 Motion to Quash (sdc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CISSY N. FISHER, as Guardian of
CHRISTOPHER FISHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY GLANZ, SHERIFF
OF TULSA COUNTY, in his
Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-CV-678-TCK-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena to Produce Documents,
Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action [Dkt. #80] filed by
nonparty Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc. (“CHC”). CHC seeks to quash plaintiff’s
subpoena, which sought production of “[a]ny and all documents in the custody of [CHC] which
contain information on Dr. Andrew Adusei’s employment at David L. Moss Criminal Justice
Center . . . includ[ing] all documents 4 years prior to the subject incident in November 2012 and
1 year after.” [Dkt. #80-1].
CHC, Adusei, and five other CHC employees were named as defendants in plaintiff’s
Third Amended Complaint. [Dkt. #18]. On March 24, 2016, plaintiff’s claims against CHC and
Adusei were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. [Dkt. #55 at 30, Dkt. #72].
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims against the four other employees. [Dkts. #47, 63].
CHC contends the subpoena seeks privileged documents which have no bearing on the
remaining claims in the lawsuit, and additionally asserted that the request is vague, overly broad
and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) requires the court to quash or modify a subpoena that
seeks disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception applies. According to
CHC, the doctor’s personnel file contains sensitive personal information such as his social
security number, financial information, home address, contact information and private
background check results; and proprietary, commercial information such as employment
agreements, compensation arrangements, credentialing information and liability insurance
applications. The Tenth Circuit has observed that “personnel files often contain sensitive
personal information . . . and it is not unreasonable to be cautious about ordering their entire
contents disclosed will-nilly.” Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 648 (10th Cir.
2008). Moreover, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the relevance of the subpoenaed documents.
Accordingly, CHC’s Motion to Quash [Dkt. #80] is hereby granted.
ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2016.

2