Taylor v. Glenn et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendant's Notice of Document Subpoena to Farmers Insurance Company and denying 19 plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendant's Notice of Document Subpoena to Travelers Indemnity Company and 21 and plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendant's Notice of Document Subpoena to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/4/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID ANTHONY TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHAD LANDON GLENN, and
KIMRAD TRANSPORT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-462-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Notice of Document Subpoena
to Farmers Insurance Company, filed November 18, 2014. On December 8, 2014, defendants filed
their response, and on December 17, 2014, plaintiff filed his reply. Also before the Court are
plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Notice of Document Subpoena to Travelers Indemnity
Company and plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Notice of Document Subpoena to State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, both filed December 9, 2014. On December 31, 2014,
defendants filed their response. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its
determination.
This case arises out of an accident that occurred on May 21, 2011, on eastbound Highway
152 near the Texas/Oklahoma border in western Oklahoma. A semi tractor-trailer driven by
defendant Chad Glenn, while in the course and scope of his employment with defendant Kimrad
Transport, struck a Chevrolet S10 pickup driven by plaintiff. On November 10, 2014, defendants
sent a Notice of Document Subpoena to plaintiff, notifying plaintiff of defendants’ intention of
serving a subpoena duces tecum on Farmers Insurance Company. The subpoena requests any and
all claim file documents including medical records, accident reports, photographs, et cetera,

involving plaintiff. On December 4, 2014, defendants sent two Notices of Document Subpoena to
plaintiff, notifying plaintiff of defendants’ intention of serving a subpoena duces tecum on Travelers
Indemnity Company and serving a subpoena duces tecum on State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company. These subpoenas request any and all claim file documents, including medical
records, accident reports, photographs, et cetera, for the last 10 years involving plaintiff.
Plaintiff now moves the Court to quash these document subpoenas. Plaintiff asserts that the
subpoenas are merely a fishing expedition, not properly limited in time, and not likely to lead to
admissible evidence. Defendants state they believe that plaintiff has been involved in at least three
potentially serious automobile accidents following the accident at issue and they issued subpoenas
to the insurance companies involved in these accidents seeking medical records and other
investigation documents from the prior accidents because they reasonably anticipate the claim files
will contain admissible evidence regarding plaintiff’s medical conditions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as
follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense – including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any
documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible
at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Further, the party “seeking to quash a subpoena carries the burden to show
undue burden.” Sentry Ins. v. Shivers, 164 F.R.D. 255, 256 (D. Kan. 1996).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds the document subpoenas
should not be quashed. Specifically, the Court finds plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing
2

undue burden. Additionally, the Court finds that the document subpoenas are not merely a fishing
expedition but seek documents which are relevant to the issue of plaintiff’s personal injuries and are
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the Court finds that
the ten year limitation contained in the subpoenas to Travelers Indemnity Company and State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is reasonable and that this same time limitation should be
applied to the subpoena to Farmers Insurance Company.
Accordingly, the Court:
(1)

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s
Notice of Document Subpoena to Farmers Insurance Company [docket no. 16] and
ORDERS that this document subpoena be limited in scope to documents for the last
ten (10) years, and

(2)

DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Notice of Document Subpoena to
Travelers Indemnity Company [docket no. 19] and plaintiff’s Motion to Quash
Defendant’s Notice of Document Subpoena to State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company [docket no. 21].

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2015.

3