Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCrea v. Johns Hopkins Universities

United States District Court, D. Maryland

July 27, 2016

NICOLE RENA MCCREA, Plaintiff, pro se,
v.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITIES, ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          BETH P. GESNER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Now 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.

         I. Procedural Background

         This 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.)

         Plaintiff 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 plaintiff’s motion.

         Unable 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.

         Plaintiff 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. 40);[1]
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);

         The fifth, sixth, and seventh motions to quash were filed on July 1, 2016:

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);[2] 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.