Conahan v. medQuest LTD
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-01325
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Conahan v. Medquest, Judge Liman denied Conahan’s protective-order motion, ruling subpoenaed information was relevant and within discovery rules.
The ruling affected Conahan and the defendants’ efforts to obtain information by subpoena, including the requested medical, pharmacy, and bank records.
What happened
In Conahan v. Medquest, the defendants sought the plaintiff’s bank records and authorization for medical and pharmacy records. The plaintiff asked the court to block the requests and protect her privacy.
The plaintiff argued that the bank subpoena exceeded the geographic and discovery limits in the federal rules. She also argued that her claim for ordinary emotional-distress damages did not put her medical history at issue.
Judge Liman denied the motion for a protective order, stating that the information sought by subpoena was relevant and within the scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The order does not expressly state how the separate request to quash the bank subpoena was resolved.
The detailed version
- Conahan v. medQuest LTD · No. 1:20-cv-01325
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 18, 2021
Background
The plaintiff submitted a letter motion asking the court to quash a subpoena served on Ocean First Bank and to issue a protective order concerning her medical and pharmacy records. The defendants sought the plaintiff’s bank records and requested that she sign authorizations releasing records from her primary care physician and pharmacy.
Arguments
The plaintiff argued that the bank subpoena violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 because the requested production location was more than 100 miles from the place where the subpoena was served. She also argued that the subpoena was beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 26, was overbroad, and relied on speculation about whether she had transferred money from the defendants’ accounts.
Regarding the medical and pharmacy records, the plaintiff argued that she claimed only ordinary, or “garden variety,” emotional-distress damages and had not placed her physical or mental condition at issue. She also stated that she had not sought treatment from a psychiatrist or other mental-health professional.
Ruling
Judge Lewis Liman denied the motion for a protective order. The order stated: “The information that Defendant seeks by way of subpoena is relevant and falls within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.” The opinion text does not separately state a disposition of the plaintiff’s request to quash the Ocean First Bank subpoena.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.