United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a Motion to Quash Nonparty
Request for Production and Subpoena Duces Tecum [DE 87],
filed by Defendants on May 3, 2017. Defendants request that
the Court quash a “Request for Production of Documents
to a Non-Party” issued by Plaintiff to Dr. Douglas W.
Caruana, who provided psychological evaluations to Defendant
Schererville Police Department concerning Plaintiff's
mental health while she was employed by the Police
to the instant Motion, Plaintiff alleges that in December
2013 her supervisors in the Schererville Police Department
placed her on administrative leave after she made comments
about suicide, but that male officers who made similar
comments were not placed on administrative leave or declared
unfit for duty. Plaintiff's supervisors required her to
meet with a psychologist, Dr. Caruana, before she could
return to work. Other Schererville officers, including
Officer Jeff Myszak, Officer Matthew Djukic, and Corporal
Timothy Aravanitis, were also referred to Dr. Caruana during
their employment. Plaintiff hopes to use these male officers
as comparators to prove that the Police Department
discriminated against her because of her sex.
November 30, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel, ordering Defendants to turn over documents
concerning administrative leave, psychological evaluations,
and fitness for duty examinations for Djukic, Myszak, and
Aravanitis. The subject of that Order was limited to
Plaintiff's February 2016 request for production of
documents sent to Defendants.
March 1, 2017, Defendants disclosed Dr. Caruana, who is not a
party to this case, as a witness, stating that “Dr.
Caruana is expected to testify regarding his discussions with
Schererville Police Department on December 5, 2013, regarding
Plaintiff and the explanation behind the advice provided in
those discussions and his consultation with Plaintiff.”
Long before that, on May 13, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel
served a request for production of documents on Dr. Caruana.
Because Plaintiff did not receive responses to the requests,
she resent them to Dr. Caruana on April 19, 2017. Defendants
now move to quash the requests.
Standard of Review
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(1). “On motion or on its own, the court must
limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed
. . . if it determines that . . . the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative . . . or . . . the
proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule
26(b)(1).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), (iii).
Nonparty Requests for Production of Documents
the parties do not address the issue, it appears that
Plaintiff's “Request for Production of Documents to
a Non-Party” was not issued in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The first line of the
document requests that Dr. Caruana “produce to
Plaintiff's attorney, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure” various documents in his
possession. The discovery request also says that it and
“the attached Subpoena Duces Tecum are issued pursuant
to the provisions of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, by its
own terms, authorizes a party to request documents only from
another party. Dr. Caruana is not a party to this
lawsuit, and thus Plaintiff cannot request any documents from
him under Rule 34. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(c) (stating that Rule 45 governs nonparty
requests for documents).
parties did not provide a copy of the Subpoena Duces Tecum to
the Court, so the Court cannot determine whether that
document complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45,
which governs nonparty subpoenas and document requests. Rule
45 contains very specific content and process requirements
for nonparty subpoenas, and without the document, the Court
is unable to assess whether Plaintiff met those requirements
in issuing the subpoena to Dr. Caruana. Similarly, Rule 45
contains exacting requirements for parties seeking to object
to a nonparty subpoena, and it does not appear that
Defendants have complied with those requirements.
way, there is a deeper problem with Plaintiff's discovery
request, as discussed below, in that it seeks information
that is either irrelevant or already in Plaintiff's
possession. Accordingly, despite the procedural difficulties
both sides have run into in pursuing and objecting to the Dr.
Caruana discovery, the Court considers whether the discovery
is appropriate ...