Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kyner v. Loveridge

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

April 23, 2019

CHRIS KYNER, Plaintiff,
v.
BENJAMIN R. LOVERIDGE, DEANNA HAURI, MIRANDA VINCENTE, JANE GREGORY, N. DAVIS, Defendants.

          Jeb Adam Crandall BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS

          ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION TO COMPEL

          Mark J. Dinsmore, United State magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena in Part [Dkt. 126] and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Dkt. 144]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Chris Kyner brings claims against Defendants Dr. Loveridge and Nurses Hauri, Gregory, David, and Vicente, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The remaining claims in this case assert that Defendants failed to provide pain medication and antibiotics ordered by Dr. Alderman beginning July 30, 2015. [Dkt. 91 at 11.] In the course of discovery, on or about October 21, 2018, Plaintiff served a third-party subpoena on Warden Keith Butts, requesting documentation pertaining to Defendants and their employer at the relevant time, Corizon LLC, in addition to documentation from the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”). [Dkt. 126-1.] Defendants Loveridge, Hauri, Gregory, David, and Vicente, as well as former Defendant Miller, seek an order to quash the subpoena in part. [Dkt. 126.] Defendants state that “[m]ost of the eighty-one (81) requests concern IDOC documentation, so Defendants do not have standing to object, but some specifically involve their personnel records and correspondence.” [Dkt. 126 at 2.]

         On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, seeking an order from the Court to compel third-party Keith Butts to produce the subpoenaed documents. [Dkt. 144.]

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas. The breadth of discoverable material via subpoena parallels the liberal scope permitted under Rule 26(b) so long as the material sought is relevant, and not privileged. Graham v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253-54 (S.D. Ind. 2002). A court must grant a motion to quash or modify a subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter . . . or subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A) (iii)-(iv). When determining whether to enforce a discovery request, the court must weigh the need for the information, the breadth of the request, the time period the discovery covers, the particularity of the documents, and the burden imposed. Charles v. Quality Carriers, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00428-RLY-JMS, 2010 WL 396356 at *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2010). The party seeking to quash a subpoena bears the burden of establishing its objections. Jackson v. Brinker, 147 F.R.D. 189, 194 (S.D. Ind. 1993) (citing Holifield v. United States, 909 F.2d 201, 2014 (7th Cir.1990)).

         Generally, only the subject of a subpoena may move to quash; however, if a party has a “personal right or privilege” or “legitimate interests, ” that party may object to the subpoena. Brady v. Cent. Indiana Reg'l Blood Ctr. Inc., No. 1:99-MC-19, 1999 WL 33912610, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 1999); Nobel Roman's, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 314 F.R.D. 304, 306 (S.D. Ind. 2016). The decision of whether to quash a subpoena falls within the district court's discretion. See Ott v. City of Milwaukee, 682 F.3d 552, 556 (7th Cir. 2012).

         III. Discussion

         Defendants Loveridge, Hauri, Vicente, Gregory, and Davis, and former Defendant Miller, object to several of Plaintiff's requests in which they argue they have a personal right, privilege, or legitimate interest. The Court will address their objections below.

         A. Policies (Request Nos. 15-18)

         Defendants first object to Request Nos. 15(a)-(e), 16, 17, and 18, which request various policies and guidelines in effect on June 12, 2015. The requests are as follows:

15. Each and every published policy, guideline, standard, program, statement, directive and/or procedure (other than Policy 04-01-104, AHCSD 2.04, Policy 01-02-101 and HCSD 1.30) of IDOC's - and each and every published policy, guideline, standard, rule, program, statement, directive and/or procedure of Corizon, LLC's equivalent-in-purpose (and/or related) thereto - as was in effect on 6/12/2015:
a. Governing the establishment, maintenance, and disposition of prisoner medical records;
b. Governing the establishment, maintenance, and disposition of health services personnel disciplinary records;
c. Government the development and training of health services personnel;
d. Governing the standards of conduct for health services personnel;
e. Governing the establishment, maintenance, and disposition of health services personnel records; and
f. Governing the dispensing of prescribed medications by health service staff.
16. IDOC's “The Development and Delivery of Health Care Services”, 01-02-101 - and each and every published, equivalent-in-purpose (and/or related) thereto guideline, rule, standard, program[, ] statement, directive and/or procedure of Corizon, LLC's - as was in effect on 6/12/2015.
17. IDOC Policy 04-01-104 - each and every published, equivalent-in-purpose (and/or related) thereto guideline, rule, standard, program[, ] statement, directive and/or procedure of Corizon, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.