Louis v. Mercy Health

Filing 33

ORDER denying 22 Mercy Hospital Ada, Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents; denying 23 Mercy Hospital Ardmore, Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents ; denying 24 Mercy Hospital El Reno, Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents; denying 25 Mercy Hospital Healdton, Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents ; denying 26 Mercy Hospital Kingfisher, Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents ; denying 27 Mercy Hospital Logan County, Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents ; denying 28 Mercy Hospital Watonga, Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 6/4/15. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HOLLY LOUIS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MERCY HEALTH, a foreign
corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case Number CIV-14-1358-C
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed the present action asserting claims for negligence related to medical
treatment she received at Mercy Hospital in Oklahoma City. As part of her discovery in this
case, Plaintiff issued a number of subpoenas to Mercy-affiliated hospitals throughout Oklahoma.
The subpoenas sought policies related to patient rights and responsibilities, emergency
department policies and procedures, and obstetrics and gynecology policies and procedures.
Each of the Mercy entities objected to the subpoenas and now each seeks an Order from the
Court quashing the subpoenas. In support of their Motions, each of the Mercy entities argues
that the information sought by the subpoenas lacks relevancy to the claims in the lawsuit.
In response to the Mercy entities’ Motions to Quash, Plaintiff argues that the information
sought is relevant to her claims for piercing the corporate veil and attaching liability to Mercy
Health as the parent entity of Mercy OKC, the location where the alleged injury occurred.
According to Plaintiff, the policies sought by the subpoenas may offer some evidence
demonstrating control by Mercy Health over Mercy OKC and the other Mercy entities. That

evidence would then be relevant to the issue of piercing the corporate veil of Mercy OKC and
attaching liability to Mercy Health.
After consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that the Mercy entities’
Motions will be denied. The only argument raised by the Mercy entities is relevancy, and
Plaintiff has offered arguments demonstrating that the information sought has at least some
tendency to lead to admissible evidence. Therefore, the information sought by the subpoenas
is relevant and properly discoverable. Therefore, Mercy Hospital Ada, Inc’s Motion to Quash
Subpoena to Produce Documents (Dkt. No. 22); Mercy Hospital Ardmore, Inc’s Motion to
Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (Dkt. No. 23); Mercy Hospital El Reno, Inc’s Motion
to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (Dkt. No. 24); Mercy Hospital Healdton, Inc’s
Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (Dkt. No. 25); Mercy Hospital Kingfisher,
Inc’s Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (Dkt. No. 26); Mercy Hospital Logan
County, Inc’s Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (Dkt. No. 27); and Mercy
Hospital Watonga, Inc’s Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents (Dkt. No. 28) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2015.

2