United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
Adam Crandall BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS
ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION TO
J. Dinsmore, United State magistrate Judge
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
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.]
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.
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
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).
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.
Policies (Request Nos. 15-18)
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
d. Governing the standards of conduct for health services
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
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, ...