Zeng v. Marshall University

Filing 273

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 219 Motion to Strike Response in Opposition; denying Plaintiff's 255 Motion for Sanctions on Stephen Hensley; denying Plaintiff's 257 Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Tex as Tech University Health Science Center at El Paso; granting the 260 Motion and 261 Amended Motion of Texas Tech for Leave to File a Surreply; and denying Plaintiff's 262 and 263 Motions to Strike Amended Motion to File a Surreply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 6/10/2019. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record; counsel for the non-parties; any unrepresented individual) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
WEI-PING ZENG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-03008

MARSHALL UNIVERSITY;
DR. JEROME A. GILBERT;
DR. JOSEPH SHAPIRO;
DR. W. ELAINE HARDMAN;
DR. DONALD A. PRIMERANO;
and DR. RICHARD EGLETON,
Defendants.
ORDER
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019, the undersigned conducted a status conference in
the above-styled case. Present were Dr. Wei-Ping Zeng, in person and pro se; Defendants,
by counsel, Brian D. Morrison, Esquire and Eric D. Salyers, Esquire, of Oxley Rich
Sammons; Valley Health Systems, a non-party, by counsel, Sarah A. Walling of Jenkins
Fenstermaker; and Texas Tech University Health Center at El Paso, a non-party, by
counsel, Rola Daaboul of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas and
Gordon Lee Mowen, II, of Thomas Combs and Spann. For the reasons explained at the
conference, the Court ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Response in Opposition, (ECF No. 219), is
DENIED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions on Stephen Hensley, (ECF No. 255), is
DENIED;
1

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum directed
to Texas Tech University Health Science Center at El Paso (“Texas Tech”), (ECF
No. 257), is DENIED. Plaintiff served Texas Tech with a number of document
requests in this civil action via subpoena. In the meantime, Plaintiff filed an
EEOC complaint against Texas Tech and subsequently initiated a lawsuit
against the facility in Texas. In an effort to respond to Plaintiff’s document
requests in this case, Texas Tech obtained opinions from the Office of the
Attorney General of the State of Texas regarding what documents could be
provided to Plaintiff and what documents should be withheld. Based on the
Attorney General’s opinions, Texas Tech produced certain documents.
Currently at issue are three sets of documents requested by Plaintiff. Texas
Tech has agreed to provide the documents, as outlined by the Attorney General,
but requires Plaintiff to pay the expenses associated with the productions. The
fees for the three productions are $5,045.60, $44,863.00, and $121.50. (ECF
No. 258-1 at 17-22). Plaintiff argues that these fees are too high and are not
based on verified costs to Texas Tech. Without any support for his position,
Plaintiff contends that Texas Tech can collect and produce the data he has
requested with negligible effort. The undersigned has reviewed the submissions
of Texas Tech and finds that it has explained and supported the claimed
expenses. Therefore, if Plaintiff wants the information in this litigation, he will
have to pay the amounts quoted by Texas Tech. See Terry v. Richland Sch. Dist.
Two, No. CV 3:15-3670-JFA-PJG, 2016 WL 687521, at *1-2 (D.S.C. Feb. 19,
2016). Plaintiff’s reliance on Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578 (1973) is
not persuasive, because Hurtado involved compensation to incarcerated
2

material witnesses in a criminal proceeding, not the obligation of a non-party
to incur significant expenses responding to discovery in a civil action;
4. Motion of Texas Tech for Leave to File a Surreply, (ECF No. 260), is
GRANTED;
5. Amended Motion of Texas Tech for Leave to File a Surreply, (ECF No. 261), is
GRANTED; and
6. Motions of Plaintiff to Strike Amended Motion to File a Surreply, (ECF Nos.
262, 263), are DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel of record,
counsel for the non-parties, and any unrepresented individual.
ENTERED: June 10, 2019

3