Opinion
Case No. 3:15-cv-00543-RCJ-CBC
08-09-2019
RICHARD L. GRUBER, Plaintiff, v. KAREN GEDNEY, et al., Defendants.
AARON D. FORD Attorney General DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety Division 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: 775-684-1134 Email: ghardcastle@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney, and Dana Marks
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General
GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Tel: 775-684-1134
Email: ghardcastle@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants
Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney, and Dana Marks ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA
Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney and Dana Marks, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Douglas R. Rands, Sr. Deputy Attorney General and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an Order Quashing the Trial Subpoena issued to Gerri Lynn Hardcastle. This Motion is made and based upon the attached Points and Authorities, the papers and pleadings on file herein, and such other and further information as this Court may deem appropriate.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. FACTUAL ANALYSIS
Plaintiff, Richard Gruber (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). ECF No. 1 at 1. He commenced this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over three (3) years ago, on November 5, 2015. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff raises one count and / / / / / / alleges that Defendants, Dr. Karen Gedney and Dr. Dana Marks (collectively, Defendants), were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need of diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD). ECF No. 34 at 3.
Trial in this matter is set to commence on August 12, 2019. In preparation for trial, Plaintiff, apparently filed several trial subpoenas. (ECF No. 146). While the Subpoenas were not served on the witnesses, in an abundance of caution, the Defendants move to quash Plaintiff's trial subpoena directed a Gerri Lynn Hardcastle. Ms. Hardcastle is one of the trial attorneys in this matter.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A subpoenaed party may move to quash or modify subpoenas on various grounds. On timely motion, a court must quash or modify a subpoena that: "(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). On the other hand, a court may quash or modify a subpoena if it requires: "disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B)(I). "[A] court determining the propriety of a subpoena balances the relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party's need, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena." Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. CV-12-80300-RMW, 2013 WL 1508894, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013).
In this matter, Ms. Hardcastle is one of the attorneys for the Defendants. Any of her discussions with the Defendants and most of her work on this matter would be protected by the Attorney Client privilege. "The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to protect every person's right to confide in counsel free from apprehension of disclosure of confidential communications." In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Osterhoudt), 722 F.2d 591, 593 (9th Cir.1983) (citing United States v. Sherman, 627 F.2d 189, 192 (9th Cir.1980); Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623, 629-30 (9th Cir.1960)); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1577, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A) (iii) states the Court must quash a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged matters. Therefore, the Court should grant this Motion to Quash. / / /
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the above, it is respectfully requested this Court grant the Defendant's Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena to Gerri Lynn Hardcastle.
DATED this 7th day of August, 2019.
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
By: /s/_________
DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED
/s/ _________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED August 9, 2019