United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
P. GESNER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to
quash and/or modify eight subpoena requests served by
defendants on plaintiff’s former employer and medical
providers (“Plaintiff’s Motions”) (ECF Nos.
40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50, and 54) and defendants’
Consolidated Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Quash
Subpoenas and Motion for an Order to Produce Subpoenaed
Medical Records (“Defendants’ First Opposition
and Motion”) (ECF No. 47). No hearing is necessary.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2); Loc. R. 105.6. For the
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED
and Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
case was referred to the undersigned by Judge Bredar for all
discovery and related scheduling, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) and Local Rule 301, on May 11, 2016. (ECF No.
33.) The court conducted a telephone conference with the
parties on May 26, 2016, the results of which were
memorialized in a letter order dated May 27. (ECF No. 37.)
Specifically, pro se plaintiff was informed of her
discovery obligations and directed to: (1) “Produce all
documents responsive to defendants’ discovery
requests;” (2) “provide a privilege log to
defendants;” (3) “provide complete and
non-evasive responses to defendants’ written discovery
requests;” and (4) attach a signed affirmation to her
answers to defendants’ interrogatories. (Id.)
filed an inapposite Motion for Reconsideration based on the
court’s May 27, 2016 letter order outlining
plaintiff’s discovery obligations. (ECF No. 39.) Noting
that the obligations set forth in the May 27 letter order
“apply to all parties in a lawsuit, ” the court
concluded that “there is no basis for, or reason to,
reconsider the May 27 order, ” and denied
to obtain any meaningful discovery from plaintiff directly,
defendants began to issue third-party subpoenas to
plaintiff’s former employer and medical providers.
(See, e.g., ECF No. 40 at 14.) It is this
series of subpoenas which plaintiff now challenges.
has filed eight separate motions to quash and/or modify
defendants’ subpoena requests. Plaintiff filed her
first four motions to quash on June 13, 2016:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’
Subpoena to DC Fire and Emergency Services (ECF No.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’
Subpoena to PFC Associates (ECF No. 41);
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’
Subpoena to COPE (ECF No. 42);
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’
Subpoena to Psych Experts and Associates (ECF No. 43);
fifth, sixth, and seventh motions to quash were filed on July
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’
Subpoena to DC Fire and Emergency Services (ECF No. 48);
6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’
Subpoena to Dr. Carla Rhodes (ECF No. 49);
7. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’
Subpoena to Mr. Syed Kamran (ECF No. 50); Plaintiff’s
eighth motion was filed on July 19, 2016:
8. Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Defendants’
Subpoena to the District of Columbia Human ...