Elsherif v. Mayo Clinic

Background

Dr. Elsherif moved for an order requiring Mayo Clinic to explain its conduct and for contempt and sanctions. He identified two discovery-related events.

First, documents that defendants had designated confidential under a protective order were filed publicly with Mayo’s first motion to dismiss. After the issue was brought to the defendants’ attention, they initially refused to seal the documents. The court later ordered that the documents be refiled under seal.

Second, Mayo served a subpoena for documents on the University of Minnesota. In July 2019, the court had entered a protective order prohibiting Mayo from serving a particular subpoena concerning the University’s contact with Dr. Elsherif. The court had found that subpoena unusually burdensome because Dr. Elsherif had been hired by the University but had not started work because of his immigration status, and because the information could be obtained through other permitted subpoenas.

During Dr. Elsherif’s March 20, 2020 deposition, Mayo learned about scheduled University meetings during dates when Dr. Elsherif had been absent from Mayo. Mayo wanted information about whether he had attended those meetings. On March 30, 2020, Mayo served a notice of subpoena on the University. Mayo said it served the subpoena as a placeholder because it believed discovery had to be served by March 31 and anticipated a dispute about the subpoena. Mayo later brought the subpoena to the court’s attention, and the subpoena was withdrawn.

Legal standard

A contempt order is a severe remedy. The party seeking contempt must prove the facts supporting it by clear and convincing evidence. In deciding whether a court order was violated, the court considers the specific circumstances and the reasonable beliefs of the party or its counsel. The order must also clearly prohibit the challenged conduct.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the public filing of the confidential documents was moot, meaning the issue had already been resolved and no further ruling on it was necessary. The documents had been sealed in February 2020, and the court found that the minor dispute did not justify contempt or sanctions.

As to the University subpoena, the court concluded that contempt was not warranted. The earlier protective order did not prohibit Mayo from ever seeking information from the University; it prohibited the specific subpoena that the court had previously reviewed. The court also found that Mayo could reasonably have believed the circumstances underlying the earlier order had changed, including Dr. Elsherif’s uncertain immigration status and the fact that the new subpoena sought some information the University alone could provide.

The court stated that Mayo’s counsel showed poor judgment by issuing the subpoena without first seeking clarification or permission. However, it found no evidence of bad faith or intentional disregard of a clearly controlling order. The court also noted that Mayo had been transparent because it brought the subpoena to the court’s attention itself. The court further noted that Dr. Elsherif’s primary requested sanction—ending the subpoena—had effectively already been granted when Mayo withdrew it.

Disposition

The court denied Dr. Elsherif’s Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Order of Contempt. It also prohibited Mayo Clinic from re-serving the subpoena originally served on the University of Minnesota on March 30, 2020. The court found that monetary sanctions were not warranted.

The opinion is signed by Katherine Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge.