Buy This Entire Record For
Picco v. Glenn
United States District Court, D. Colorado
August 20, 2014
GLENN PICCO and FRANCINE PICCO, Plaintiff(s),
KELLY R. GLENN, D.O., VALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, BRUCE D. LIPPMAN, II, M.D., and GLENWOOD MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, Defendant(s).
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (DOCKET NO. 96)
MICHAEL J. WATANABE, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to Subpoena Duces Tecum (docket no. 96). The court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 96), the responses (docket nos. 107 and 108), the reply (docket no. 113), and Bruce D. Lippman, II, M.D. and Glenwood Medical Associates' Joinder in Defendant Kelly R. Glenn, D.O.'s Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to Subpoena Duces Tecum [docket no. 107] (docket no. 109). In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court's file and has considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
1. That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties to this lawsuit;
2. That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;
3. That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to be heard;
4. That Plaintiffs seek an Order from the court compelling Non Party University of Colorado Hospital ["University Hospital"] to provide information requested in their subpoena duces tecum that was served upon University Hospital on May 29, 2014, as outlined below:
Any and all clinical care pathways value streams, algorithms, policies, and/or protocols for the University of Colorado Hospital emergency department related to headache, syncope, and hypertension, whether in effect or presently in development.
See subpoena duces tecum (docket no. 96-1);
5. That Plaintiffs seek the information outlined in the subpoena duces tecum above from the Non Party University Hospital to "support their theory of the proper standard of care and to impeach Dr. Zane's proposed expert testimony." See subject motion (docket no. 96) at p. 4, ¶ 9. Plaintiffs wish to discover whether the policies and procedures of Dr. Zane's own hospital, University Hospital, where he is the Chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine, require the tests to be conducted when someone presents with symptoms and signs similar to those presented by Plaintiff Mr. Picco. Plaintiffs intend to present evidence that the procedures and protocols in this regard are no different today than they were back in December of 2010. See docket no. 113 at page 4;
6. That Defendants collectively and the Non Party University Hospital argue that the subject motion (docket no. 96) should be denied or in the alternative this court should quash the subpoena duces tecum because: (1) the information Plaintiffs request in the subpoena duces tecum is entirely irrelevant to any experts' opinions in this case and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) Plaintiffs failed to serve all parties with a copy of the subpoena duces tecum before serving it on the Non Party University Hospital in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(D)(4). In addition, Non Party University Hospital further argues that the subpoena duces tecum is not limited in time, is inclusive of documents currently in development, and is overly broad and unduly burdensome;
7. That Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines the scope of discovery as follows:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense-including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery ...