Gruber v. Gedney ( 2019 )

1 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142 Deputy Attorney General 4 State of Nevada Public Safety Division 5 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 6 Tel: 775-684-1134 Email: ghardcastle@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney, and Dana Marks 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 RICHARD L. GRUBER, Case No. 3:15-cv-00543-RCJ-CBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRAN TING 13 v. MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA 14 KAREN GEDNEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Defendants, Romeo Aranas, Karen Gedney and Dana Marks, by and through counsel, Aaron D. 17 Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Douglas R. Rands, Sr. Deputy Attorney General and Gerri 18 Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an Order Quashing the Trial 19 Subpoena issued to Gerri Lynn Hardcastle. This Motion is made and based upon the attached Points and 20 Authorities, the papers and pleadings on file herein, and such other and further information as this Court 21 may deem appropriate. 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 I. FACTUAL ANALYSIS 24 Plaintiff, Richard Gruber (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department 25 of Corrections (NDOC). ECF No. 1 at 1. He commenced this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 26 U.S.C. § 1983 over three (3) years ago, on November 5, 2015. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff raises one count and 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 alleges that Defendants, Dr. Karen Gedney and Dr. Dana Marks (collectively, Defendants), were 2 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need of diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD). 3 ECF No. 34 at 3. 4 Trial in this matter is set to commence on August 12, 2019. In preparation for trial, Plaintiff, 5 apparently filed several trial subpoenas. (ECF No. 146). While the Subpoenas were not served on the 6 witnesses, in an abundance of caution, the Defendants move to quash Plaintiff’s trial subpoena directed a 7 Gerri Lynn Hardcastle. Ms. Hardcastle is one of the trial attorneys in this matter. 8 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 9 A subpoenaed party may move to quash or modify subpoenas on various grounds. On timely 10 motion, a court must quash or modify a subpoena that: “(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) 11 requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure 12 of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue 13 burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). On the other hand, a court may quash or modify a subpoena if it 14 requires: “disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial 15 information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B)(I). “[A] court determining the propriety of a subpoena balances 16 the relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party's need, and the potential hardship to the party 17 subject to the subpoena.” Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. CV-12-80300-RMW, 2013 WL 18 1508894, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013). 19 In this matter, Ms. Hardcastle is one of the attorneys for the Defendants. Any of her discussions 20 with the Defendants and most of her work on this matter would be protected by the Attorney Client 21 privilege. “The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to protect every person's right to confide in 22 counsel free from apprehension of disclosure of confidential communications.” In re Grand Jury 23 Subpoena (Osterhoudt), 722 F.2d 591, 593 (9th Cir.1983) (citing United States v. Sherman, 627 F.2d 189, 24 192 (9th Cir.1980); Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623, 629–30 (9th Cir.1960)); see also Fisher v. United 25 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) 26 states the Court must quash a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged matters. Therefore, the Court 27 should grant this Motion to Quash. 28 / / / 1 || 0. CONCLUSION 2 Based upon the above, it is respectfully requested this Court grant the Defendant’s Motion 3 || Quash Trial Subpoena to Gerri Lynn Hardcastle. 4 DATED this 7th day of August, 2019. 5 AARON D. FORD 6 Attorney Generg} 7 By: | { fp DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 8 Senior Deputy Attorney General 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 M ITIS O ED 12 13 Sema DATED p¥oust 2019 — 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28