Manning v. Herman et al

Filing 174

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 168 MOTION Court Issued Subpoenas to Obtain Medical Records and For Six Court Issued Subpoenas Related To Discovery Matters filed by Eugene Douglas Manning. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick on 10/21/2016. (cw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EUGENE DOUGLAS MANNING,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-cv-01426

v.

(JONES, J.)
(MEHALCHICK, M.J.)

DOUGLAS HERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Eugene Douglas Manning’s motion for
Court-issued subpoenas and clarification of the authenticity of medical records in his
possession. (Doc. 168). Manning, an inmate at SCI-Benner, initiated the present suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injuries allegedly suffered due to the unnecessary use of force by prison
guards during his transfer to a new cell. In the present motion, Manning seeks nine
subpoenas directed to various nonparty medical care providers for his medical records, six
subpoenas relating to discovery requests he deems insufficiently answered, and a
clarification of the authenticity requirements of medical records already received.
I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Manning initiated the instant action on May 29, 2013, alleging he sustained injuries

inflicted by prison guards during a cell transfer. (Doc. 1). Originally seeking redress from
Defendants too numerous to list here, Manning’s claims have been reduced to First and
Fourteenth Amendment claims against Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Defendants Mills and
Staley, in addition to Fourteenth Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional
distress claims against Defendant C/O Morrow. (Doc. 114). The parties have engaged in

lengthy discovery, with Manning filing motions to compel discovery answers to nonparties
(Doc. 137; Doc. 141) and Defendants (Doc. 140), and also attempting to quash subpoenas
directed to nonparties by the Defendants (Doc. 143). Manning asserted that the Defendants
provided insufficient and evasive discovery responses, and eventually stopped responding
altogether. (Doc. 140). All of these motions were denied, primarily due to a lack of proof
that Manning had engaged in good faith attempts to resolve these disputes prior to resorting
to a motion to compel. (Doc. 159; Doc. 162). Given the extensive and duplicative discovery
requests by Manning, the Court entered a protective order in favor of the Defendants on
October 17, 2016. (Doc. 173).
II.

“MOTION FOR NINE SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFIED MEDICAL RECORDS”
Manning seeks nine subpoenas addressed to various medical providers who have

treated him over the years. These include pre-incarceration and prison-contracted medical
providers. In the interest of brevity, the intended subpoena recipients are not discussed
individually here, except where necessary, as the nature of the motion does not require
individualized analysis. In all cases, Manning requests medical records relating to treatment
he received leading up to and after the injury at the heart of his suit.
None of the medical providers are parties to this action—though one, PrimeCare
Medical—was a named Defendant at earlier stages of this suit. Rule 45 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure sets forth the requirements for discovery directed to individuals and
entities that are not parties to the underlying suit through the use of a subpoena. Production
of documents from a nonparty for discovery purposes can be compelled “only by a
subpoena duces tecum issued under Rule 45(d)(1).” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 603
(M.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 1991) (quoting United States v. Allen, 578 F. Supp. 468, 472 (W.D. Wis.
-2-

1982)). A court’s broad discretion in discovery also extends to decisions regarding whether
to issue subpoenas to pro se litigants. Gay v. Petsock, 917 F.2d 768, 773 (3d Cir. 1990).
Subpoenas served in accordance with Rule 45 must fall within the scope of discovery set
forth in Rule 26(b)(1). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery of “any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” FED. R. CIV. P.
26(b)(1). Courts generally construe relevance in discovery matters broadly. See Oppenheimer
Fund, Inc. v. Saunders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). As Manning’s medical condition is
undoubtedly relevant to the case at hand, these subpoenas of medical records could lead to
potentially admissible evidence at trial. Accordingly, the requested subpoenas facially
appear to target relevant information within the scope of Rule 26.
Manning, as the moving party, remains responsible for the costs for the service and
compliance with the subpoenas. A nonparty shall not suffer the financial burden of
compliance with a subpoena duces tecum. See Badman, 139 F.R.D. at 605. Manning avers
that he is willing and able to front the costs of obtaining the requested documents. Manning
is reminded that he is ultimately responsible for any fees charged in attempting to obtain
copies of the desired documents, to be collected in the manner prescribed by the recipients
of each subpoena.
The Clerk of Court will be directed to issue a subpoena to Manning for his use in
discovery. The Clerk of Court will complete the caption and the civil action number on the
blank subpoena form. Manning must complete the subpoena form and then serve it in

-3-

accordance with Rule 45(b), and must file a certificate of service with the Court for any
subpoena served. 1 If he fails to use the subpoena, he must return it to the Clerk of Court
within ten (10) days of the close of discovery.
III.

“MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
RECORDS”

AS TO

ALREADY AUTHENTICATED MEDICAL

Turning next to Manning’s “motion for clarification as to already authenticated
medical records,” Manning requests the Court render a judgment as to the authenticity of
medical records received from Dr. Go. However, the Court deems such a judgment to be
inappropriate. “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of
evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item
is what the proponent claims it is.” FED. R. EVID. 901(a). Courts can only decide whether a
prima facie showing of authenticity has been made and, once satisfied, “the evidence goes
to the jury and it is the jury who will ultimately determine the authenticity of the evidence,
not the court.” U.S. v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 328-29 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Link v.
Mercedes-Benz of North America, 788 F.2d 918, 928 (3d Cir. 1986). Therefore, the only
authenticity judgment a Court can make is whether a prima facie showing of authenticity
has been made out. Such a judgment would require some evidence that the document is
what the proponent claims it is and that a reasonable juror “could infer that the document
was authentic.” McGlory, 968 F.2d at 329. In support of his motion, Manning provided the

1

Manning is reminded that under FED. R. CIV. P. 45(b)(1), if he wishes to serve a
subpoena on a nonparty and requests the production of documents, notice must be served
on each party before the subpoena is served.
-4-

records he seeks to have authenticated with the “authorization for release of information
form” submitted to the medical records department of SCI-Benner, where Dr. Go treated
him. While this may prove sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of authenticity for
the purposes of summary judgment, the Court cannot render ultimate judgment on the
authenticity of the evidence, as Manning requests. In any case, no summary judgment
motion is currently pending, and thus any decision as to the authenticity of evidence used to
defeat a summary judgment motion would be premature. Accordingly, his motion is denied.
IV.

“MOTION FOR SIX ADDITIONAL FEDERAL COURT ISSUED SUBPOENAS
PLAINTIFF’S NEEDED DISCOVERY”

FOR

Lastly, Manning requests six Court-issued subpoenas directed to: (1) the Franklin
County Jail, Defendants’ employer, in order to obtain information about them; (2) “TJA,”
who Manning alleges trained the Defendants in the use of necessary force; (3) the “DOC
Academy” where Defendants received instruction material for the training; (4) Defendant
Morrow; (5) Defendant Mills; and (6) Defendant Staley.
As a preliminary matter, the subpoena requests directed to Defendants Morrow,
Mills, and Staley are improper. Rule 45 provides for the Court to issue subpoenas upon
nonparties, not Defendants. FED. R. CIV. P. 45. To the extent Manning seeks information
from the Defendants to this action, he must use the proper channels of discovery. Noting
that a protective order is in place, Manning must request leave of Court before any further
discovery may be effectuated upon the Defendants. Manning’s rationale for these subpoenas
centers upon discovery answers by the Defendants that he deems evasive. As explained in
prior Orders regarding Manning’s discovery requests, to the extent he believes Defendants
provided evasive discovery answers, he must in good faith attempt to resolve these issues
-5-

without Court intervention, and, only upon a showing thereof, may file a motion to compel.
Rule 45 does not permit the use of Court-issued subpoenas to circumvent the rules of
discovery and accordingly the issuance of subpoenas upon a party to this action would be
improper.
The motion for subpoenas to be directed to the Franklin County Jail, TJA, and DOC
Academy must also be denied. Under Rule 45(d), a “[p]arty responsible for issuing and
serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense
on a person subject to the subpoena.” In the explanation for the necessity of a subpoena,
Manning outlines the same rationale as for the subpoenas intended for the Defendants
themselves. The justification for these subpoenas is the perceived insufficiency of discovery
answers by the Defendants. In the subpoena requests, Manning seeks the same information
from nonparty designees as he requests from parties to the case. Because this information
appears to be available from sources already involved in this case, imposing a Court-issued
subpoena on nonparties would prove unduly burdensome. The Court finds the imposition
of a subpoena upon the nonparties Franklin County Jail, TJA, and Doc Academy to
constitute an undue burden, given the nature of the information sought. Accordingly,
Manning’s motion for six subpoenas related to discovery is denied.
V.

CONCLUSION
An appropriate Order will follow.

s/ Karoline Mehalchick

Dated: October 21, 2016

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States Magistrate Judge

-6-