United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING MOTION FOR
Y. WANG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is Non-Party Marrick Medical Finance,
LLC's Motion for Relief from July 19, 2019 Order and
Immediate Stay Pending Ruling (“Motion for
Relief”), filed July 24, 2019, [#84], that was referred
to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the Order of Reference dated June 11, 2019, [#52], and the
Memorandum dated July 25, 2019, [#85]. Having reviewed the
Parties' briefing [#84; #98], the entire docket, and the
applicable case law, this court finds that oral argument
would not materially assist in the resolution of this matter
and DENIES the Motion for Relief and
ORDERS responses to the subpoena consistent
with the court's July 19, 2019 Order no later than
September 10, 2019.
background of this case has been detailed in other Orders,
see e.g. [#77; #88], and therefore will be
summarized only as pertinent to the issue presented in the
Motion for Relief by Non-Party Marrick Medical Finance, LLC
(“Marrick” or “Marrick Medical”).
This case arises from an automobile collision that occurred
on May 3, 2018, between Plaintiff Abril Anchondo-Galaviz
(“Plaintiff” or “Ms.
Anchondo-Galaviz”) and a third-party tortfeasor. [#3].
As a result of the collision, Ms. Anchondo-Galaviz sought
underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”) benefits
from her insurance carrier Defendant State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant” or
“State Farm”). [Id. at ¶ 25]. State
Farm did not provide Plaintiff with the benefits she sought,
and this action followed.
discovery in this matter, Plaintiff testified that Marrick
paid for her most recent visit with her treating physician,
Dr. Masri. [#29-1 at 42:15-17]. She further testified that after
every doctor's appointment, Marrick called her for a
“wellness check.” [Id. at 42:18-43:2].
On March 22, 2019, Defendant served Marrick a subpoena
seeking contents of its file related to Plaintiff, including
medical records and payments. [#38]. It appears that on April
8, 2019, counsel for Marrick contacted counsel for State Farm
to inform him that Marrick had received the subpoena, and
then sought to quash the subpoena, arguing that the
information sought was not relevant in part, at least,
because of Colorado's collateral source rule and was
further precluded based on the work product doctrine. [#38].
This court disagreed, and on July 19, 2019, granted State
Farm's Motion to Compel and ordered Marrick to respond to
the subpoena no later than July 26, 2019. [#77 at 21].
24, 2019, Marrick filed the instant Motion for Relief seeking
relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, arguing inter alia that State Farm
had failed to inform the court that Marrick had objected to
the subpoena and had informed State Farm that it was
withholding documents because
Plaintiff is asserting her right to medical privacy. . . . To
be clear we are withholding documents that the Plaintiff is
not in possession of. However, you requested a lot of records
from Marrick that you are likely in possession of as well as
the Plaintiff. That is what was unreasonable about your
requests. That is why you did not take reasonable steps to
avoid imposing an undue burden on a nonparty to this
[#84 at 3, 5; #84-5]. Marrick further contended that it
should be relieved from the court's July 19 Order because
it did not have an opportunity to be heard in the context of
Plaintiff's Motion to Quash. [#84].
responded on August 1, 2019, arguing that it had “never
argued that Marrick failed to object or sought relief against
Marrick in this case, ” and that “Marrick had
ample notice of this dispute and took no action other than to
object to the Subpoena.” [#98 at 1-2]. State Farm
further contends that Marrick's objections were not
“material” to the disputes before the court but
would only be relevant in a separate motion to compel against
Marrick that has yet to be filed. [Id. at 7]. I
consider the Parties' arguments and issues below.
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;