MACMILLAN-BELL v. KANG et al
Filing
43
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the defendants motion to compel (Doc. 38.) and the plaintiffs motion for a protective order (Doc. 40.) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 7, 2016. (kjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CLARE MacMILLAN-BELL,
Plaintiff
v.
PETER KANG, M.D., et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:15-CV-2463
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
ORDER
On September 7, 2016, the Court convened a telephone conference with the
parties to address several disputes that have arisen with respect to discovery
requests that the defendants propounded upon the plaintiff.
During this conference the defendants argued that the plaintiff should be
compelled to produce additional information with respect to her food diary;
additional information from the plaintiff and her parents regarding the existence of
the cell phones that they previously owned and may have used to take pictures and
to communicate with their daughter after October 2013; and a copy of the
plaintiff’s application for an internship that she secured with a New York law firm
this summer, nearly three years after the incidents that gave rise to the claims in
this case. In addition, the defendant has propounded a subpoena on Verizon
Wireless, the phone company used by the plaintiff and her family under a single
plan, seeking a broad array of billing and phone usage information, including text
messaging and phone calls, dating back to October 2013 – a scope of discovery
that the plaintiff argued was vastly overbroad and irrelevant to the issues in this
case. Lastly, the defendant requested that the Court strike certain language that the
plaintiff used in her discovery responses – language that the defendant insisted was
inappropriate and unwarranted.
The Court considered the parties’ detailed submissions in support of their
motions, and addressed each of these matters with counsel during the course of a
productive conversation in which counsel were largely in agreement regarding the
Court’s proposed resolution of the disputes. Having informed the parties of the
Court’s rulings during the telephone conference, and consistent with those
instructions, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the defendant’s motion to compel
(Doc. 38.) and the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order (Doc. 40.) are
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1.
The parties have agreed that the plaintiff has produced her food diary
to the defendants. Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED
with respect to this discovery, subject to the plaintiff’s ongoing
obligation to supplement her production as may be necessary.
2.
The defendants’ request to have the Court strike certain language used
in the plaintiff’s discovery responses is DENIED.
3.
The defendant’s request to compel production of the plaintiff’s
application for her summer 2016 internship is DENIED.
2
4.
To address the defendants’ concerns regarding the existence of the
plaintiff’s and her parents’ former cell phones, or for information that
may have been contained on those phones, within 30 days from the
date of this Order, the plaintiff and her parents shall certify whether or
not they have the phones in their possession.
5.
Also within 30 days of the date of this Order, the plaintiff and her
parents shall certify that they have searched for and produced
responsive photographs and text messaging information that they have
in their possession which fall within the temporal and topical
limitations previously agreed to by the parties.
6.
Lastly, with respect to the third-party subpoena served on Verizon
Wireless, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the subpoena shall be
limited to the plaintiff’s own cell phone records dating from October
1, 2013, through October 31, 2013, and to the cell phone records of
the plaintiff’s mother from October 2, 2013, through October 10,
2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Verizon shall produce
this information directly to the plaintiff’s counsel, who will then
review the information and make redactions before producing any
relevant and responsive phone information to defendants’ counsel.
So ordered this 7th day of September, 2016.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?