275 F.R.D. 33
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff Vanessa Coleman is a former DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department firefighter.
- Defendants are the District of Columbia and FEMS Assistant Chief Brian Lee (in his individual capacity).
- Plaintiff asserts DC Whistleblower Act claims and federal §1983 claims; discovery stayApplicable to constitutional claims pending resolution.
- Plaintiff issued a subpoena to non-party Police and Fire Clinic seeking fitness-for-duty related documents (17 categories).
- DC moved to quash four subcategories of the subpoena (Requests 4,5,14,15) as irrelevant and burdensome, and PFC Associates moved for protective order regarding 11 requests (Category B).
- Hearing left dispute narrowed to Category B requests; Category B Request 17 deemed relevant, others deemed overly broad/irrelevant; discovery limited to DC claims (federal claims stay).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Category B Requests 4,5,14,15 overly broad and irrelevant to DC claims? | Coleman seeks evidence of practices affecting DC employees generally. | DC argues the requests invade privacy and are not relevant to DC claims. | Requests 4,5,14,15 granted protective order; not relevant. |
| Is Category B Request 17 relevant to any asserted claims? | Requests pertain to Coleman and her communications with attorneys; could be relevant. | Requests are limited to her and her counsel; relevance uncertain. | Request 17 is relevant; denied as to protection. |
| Should DC’s motion to quash be decided or rendered moot given protective orders? | DC’s quash seeks to limit subpoena scope. | Motion should be sustained for these four requests. | DC’s motion to quash denied as moot; Category B ruling stands. |
| Scope of discovery remaining after stay on §1983 claims | Discovery should extend to all relevant fitness-for-duty practices. | Discovery limited to DC claims; federal claims remain stayed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Convertino v. United States Department of Justice, 565 F.Supp.2d 10 (D.D.C. 2008) (broadly construed relevance for discovery; need versus burden)
- Meijer, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Holdings Co., III, Ltd., 245 F.R.D. 26 (D.D.C. 2007) (relevance as need for discovery; broad interpretation with limits)
- Flanagan v. Wyndham International Inc., 231 F.R.D. 98 (D.D.C. 2005) (balancing burden against need and relevance in Rule 26 discovery)
- Baumann v. District of Columbia, 744 F.Supp.2d 216 (D.D.C. 2010) (elements of DC Whistleblower Act; relevance of retaliation evidence)
- In re Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Directed to Department of Veterans Affairs, 257 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2009) (Rule 45 scope aligned with Rule 26(b)(1) limits)
- Watts v. S.E.C., 482 F.3d 501 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (guidance on evaluating burden under Rule 45 against breadth of discovery)