Buy This Entire Record For
Estate of Lillis v. Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe County
United States District Court, D. Colorado
July 29, 2019
THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY SCOTT LILLIS, by and through its co-personal representatives Meghan Lillis and Michele Driscoll, MEGHAN LILLIS, individually, C.A.L., individually, a minor, by and through Michele Driscoll as guardian, C.S.L., individually, a minor, by and through Michele Driscoll as guardian, A.L., individually, a minor, by and through Robin Booth as next friend and mother, JORDAN LILLIS, individually, and ASHLEY PERRY, individually, Plaintiffs,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY, TYLER S. BROWN, in his official capacity as Arapahoe County Sheriff, and RUTH KYAMBADDE, RN, individually; Defendants.
KRISTEN L. MIX MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Motion for
Emergency Stay of July 12, 2019 Discovery Order Pending
Appeal, for Approval of Supersedeas Bond, and Notice of
Intent to Appeal [#218] (the “Motion”),
filed by Non-parties Anita Brown, Jason Frank, and Nancy
Winegar (hereinafter, the “Appellant Nurses”),
who are three of the five Non-party Nurses who previously
filed a Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash the
Subpoena [#169] (the “Motion to Quash”).
Plaintiffs timely filed a Response [#227] in opposition to
the present Motion [#218].
12, 2019, the Court entered an Order [#207] granting in part,
denying as moot in part, and taking under advisement in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production [#144] (the
“Motion to Compel”) and denying in full the
Non-party Nurses' Motion to Quash [#169]. In short, the
Order [#207] compelled disclosure of records relating to the
Non-party Nurses that are in the custody of the Colorado
Board of Nursing (“the Board”), which is part of
Colorado's Department of Regulatory Agencies
(“DORA”). The subpoena at issue was served on the
Board. The Non-party Nurses intervened in this action to
argue that the records should not be produced based on a lack
of relevance, the Nurses' expectation of privacy, the
settlement communications privilege, and the peer review
privilege, the last of which the Court had already rejected
in a prior Order [#135]. Motion to Quash [#169].
19, 2019, the three Appellant Nurses filed a Notice of Appeal
[#219] with respect to the Court's Order [#207] denying
their Motion to Quash [#169]. The same day, shortly before
filing the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant Nurses filed the
present Motion [#218], in which they seek a stay of the
Court's Order [#207] pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(b) and
62(d). The other two Non-party Nurses, Robly Evans and Denise
Elwell, are not parties to the present Motion [#218] or to
Appellant Nurses rely for their stay request in part on
Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). Motion [#218] at 6-10. In
relevant part, Rule 62(d) provides:
While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or
final judgment that grants, continues, modifies, refuses,
dissolves, or refuses to dissolve or modify an
injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or
grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that
secure the opposing party's rights.
(emphasis added). By its own terms, Rule 62(d) applies only
to injunctions. The Appellant Nurses have provided no
authority, and the Court has found none, where the meaning of
“injunction” under Rule 62(d) has been deemed to
include routine discovery orders, even when those discovery
orders are directed at non-parties.
the Motion [#218] is denied to the extent it
is asserted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d).
Appellant Nurses further rely for their stay request on
[#218] at 4-6. Rule 62(b) provides:
At any time after judgment is entered, a party may obtain a
stay by providing a bond or other security. The stay takes
effect when the court approves the bond or other security and
remains in effect for ...