Cannon v. Correctional Medical Care, Inc., 9:15-cv-01417

Background

Mark Cannon died in Albany County Jail custody after a progressive neurological decline; the New York State Commission of Correction (the Commission) conducted a Medical Review Board investigation and issued a detailed Final Report critical of the medical care provided by Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (CMC).
The Final Report concluded nursing staff failed to perform proper neurological assessments, failed to notify physicians as required, and that care was "so grossly inadequate . . . that it shocks the conscience." The Report recommended discipline and further inquiry into CMC’s fitness to provide care.
The Report and related materials (including other Commission reports, CMC’s response, an Assurance of Discontinuance, and an independent audit) were publicly available and already obtained by plaintiff’s counsel.
Plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on the Commission seeking a witness to testify about the Medical Review Board’s origin/operations, prior inmate-death efforts, responses from CMC, and reasons the Commission concluded CMC’s care did not meet community standards.
The Commission moved to quash, arguing no single witness could speak for the Commission, the testimony would intrude on deliberative process and constitute unretained expert opinion, and the information sought was obtainable from other sources.
The magistrate judge granted the motion to quash, reasoning the Final Report and other public materials supplied the relevant factual basis, the testimony sought would largely be expert in nature and/or deliberative, and depositions of high-level governmental officials require necessity and minimal interference with functions, which were not shown here.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deposition subpoena to the NYS Commission of Correction should be enforced	Plaintiff sought factual testimony about the Board’s factual basis and reasons for criticizing CMC; claimed not seeking expert opinion	Commission argued no single witness could speak for it, testimony would be unretained expert opinion and deliberative, and facts are available in public reports	Quashed — subpoena unduly burdensome, duplicative, sought deliberative/expert material obtainable elsewhere
Whether testimony would impermissibly elicit unretained expert opinion	Plaintiff said it wanted facts underlying report, not expert conclusions	Commission said assessing whether care met medical standards is expert territory; plaintiff already has experts	Held that much testimony would be expert in nature and inappropriate absent proper expert disclosure
Whether testimony sought unique information unobtainable from other sources	Plaintiff contended Commission members had relevant knowledge of process and findings	Commission and court noted plaintiff already had Final Report, other Commission reports, CMC’s response, Assurance of Discontinuance, and audit reports	Court held plaintiff failed to show necessity or unique knowledge; information available from other sources
Whether deposition would unduly burden high-level governmental officials	Plaintiff did not dispute officials were high-level and did not show deposition would not interfere with duties	Commission argued depositions of officials require heightened showing of necessity and would hamper operations given volume of cases	Court applied heightened standard and found plaintiff did not meet it; deposition would unduly burden the Commission

Key Cases Cited

In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104 (2d Cir.) (motions to quash subpoenas entrusted to district court discretion)
Libaire v. Kaplan, 760 F. Supp. 2d 288 (E.D.N.Y.) (party issuing subpoena must show relevance; movant must show overbreadth/undue burden)
Oliver v. Robert L. Yeager Mental Health Ctr., 398 F.3d 183 (2d Cir.) (medical-negligence claims ordinarily require expert testimony to establish standard of care)
Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.) (public reports by government agencies are admissible under hearsay exception for public records)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (procedures for public access to court filings and sealing considerations)