United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
JAMES R. SPENCER, Senior District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Quash (ECF No. 30) by Chesterfield Community Services Board ("CSB") and a Motion to Quash Subpoenas to His Medical Providers or, Alternatively, To Limit Them to the Scope of Proper Discovery (ECF No. 34) by Plaintiff John Vannoy ("Plaintiff' or "Vannoy"). For the reasons below, the Court will DENY CSB's Motion and DENY IN PART Vannoy's Motion.
This case was removed to this Court from the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia on November 21, 2013. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 20, 2013 against the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond ("FRBR" or "Defendant"). Vannoy alleges that Defendant violated the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") when it fired him on December 21, 2010.
I. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH
On January 30, 2014, Vannoy served initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A). In the disclosures, Vannoy identified health care providers likely to have discoverable information that he may use to support his claims including: Dr. Victor Brugh ("Brugh"), FRBR's former Medical Director of its Health Services Unit ("FRBR Health Services"); and three other treating health care providers-Aleksandra Jankowska ("Jankowska"), Dr. Radhika Sriram ("Sriram"), and Mimi Kline ("Kline"). Vannoy's initial disclosures also indicated that he may rely upon medical records regarding his mental and physical health, care, and treatment to support his claims.
On February 25, 2014, FRBR's counsel requested that Vannoy sign releases for medical records and psychotherapy notes for FRBR Health Services, Jankowska, Sriram, Kline, and Commonwealth Primary Care-the medical practice where Dr. David Stein ("Stein") works. Vannoy has not signed any medical releases, thus, necessitating FRBR's instant subpoenas.
On April 22, 2014, FRBR served by mail a notice ("Notice") to Vannoy's counsel along with copies of six subpoenas directed at health care providers identified by Vannoy has having treated him for his alleged disabilities and/or serious health conditions. The subpoenas directed at FRBR Health Services, Jankowska and Sriram at Chesterfield County Mental Health Support Services ("CCMHSS"), and Stein, were served on April 23. The subpoena directed at Jankowska at her private practice was served on April 28. Responses to the subpoenas were due by May 8. FRBR was unable serve the subpoena to Kline for several days. In an effort to ensure that Kline would have sufficient time in which to respond to the subpoena after service, FRBR reissued a subpoena with a later deadline. Vannoy represents that the notices and copies of the subpoenas to Vannoy's medical providers were not received in the office of Vannoy's counsel until April 28, 2014. On April 28, FRBR's counsel served a second notice and a copy of the revised subpoena on Vannoy's counsel. The revised subpoena directed at Kline was served on April 30.
On April 29, Vannoy served Expert Designations by mail upon FRBR's counsel, identifying Jankowska, Sriram, and Kline as potential expert witnesses on his behalf. (ECF No. 38 Ex. 4). According to Vannoy's disclosures, Jankowska and Sriram are both expected to testify about their treatment, evaluations, and opinions of Vannoy's emotional and psychological condition, based upon their treatment of him. In addition, both are expected to testify about, and explain their records relating to, Vannoy. Similarly, Kline is expected to testify about her treatment, evaluations, and opinions of Vannoy's emotional and psychological condition. In all, Vannoy's Expert Designations set forth nine pages summarizing the anticipated testimony of Jankowska, Sriram, and Kline relating to their treatment of Vannoy.
On May 7, having received a copy of FRBR Health Services's subpoena response, FRBR's counsel notified Vannoy's counsel that a copy of the records would be made available for inspection and copying the following morning in response to Vannoy's discovery request seeking copies of these records. Later that day, Vannoy moved to quash all subpoenas issued by FRBR. The next day, Vannoy's counsel copied the FRBR Health Services file. Vannoy's counsel used the FRBR Health Services file extensively during Brugh's deposition on May 14, 2014.
On May 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. Plaintiff requests that, if the subpoenas are not quashed, they should be modified so that FRBR has access only to properly discoverable information. FRBR filed its opposition on May 20, 2014. FRBR requests that Vannoy's counsel be required to pay FRBR's attorneys' fees incurred in responding to his Motion to Quash, that Vannoy be ordered to make himself available for an additional day of deposition once FRBR has received and had an opportunity to review the medical records, that FRBR be permitted to amend its expert disclosures, if any, upon review of the medical records, and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff filed his reply on May 29, 2014. Vannoy contends that of the six subpoenas at issue in Vannoy's Motion to Quash, as a practical matter his objection applies only to two-those addressed to Stein and Kline. Vannoy objects to the subpoena directed at Stein because it would obtain information going back sixteen years, which he argues is a time frame that is unreasonably broad. Similarly, Kline reportedly treated Vannoy since 1999, and Vannoy argues that that such a time frame is unreasonably broad. Vannoy objects to Defendant's Rule 34 Request only to the extent that a document might relate to a medical issue but constitute a work product document, or reflect an attorney client privileged notation. Vannoy moves the Court to grant the following relief:
1. Quash all subpoenas Defendant served to date as defective under Rule 45;
2. Order Defendant to perform Rule 45 service on Vannoy for each subpoena it issues in the future, whether the subpoena is directed to a medical provider or anyone else. Service on Vannoy means that a copy is delivered to the office of Vannoy's counsel (actual prior notice) before Defendant serves the subpoena on the recipient;
3. Order that any subpoena to a medical provider may seek information only from 2005 forward, unless the parties ...