286 F.R.D. 411
S.D. Ind.2012Background
- Plaintiffs served a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on the Prosecutor seeking materials related to the related criminal matter.
- Prosecutor moved to quash; Plaintiffs moved to compel the requested materials.
- Court conducted an in camera review and entered an order on March 30, 2012 denying in part the quash and granting in part the motion to compel.
- Prosecutor filed a motion to reconsider on April 16, 2012 arguing some disclosed documents are protected by work product and document 310 is protected under a state law governing investigations of abuse of minors.
- Court grants in part and denies in part the Prosecutor’s motion to reconsider.
- Court clarifies redaction requirements for document 310 and evaluates remaining documents under relevance and undue burden standards
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document 310 redaction scope | Document 310 contains other minors; redact non-M.D. information. | Disclosures should be limited to M.D. and protect other minors' identities. | Granted in part; redact other minor names and non-M.D. information prior to disclosure. |
| Work product protection for non-parties | Non-party should have protection over work product and related notes. | Non-party status limits protection; some documents should be disclosed if relevant. | Denied in part; non-party not entitled to work product protection for discovery to plaintiffs; however, several categories deemed not relevant and quashed. |
| Relevance of stand-alone prosecutorial notes and internal documents | Notes and internal documents may lead to admissible evidence. | Most notes and internal documents are not relevant to the Defendant’s knowledge or the civil case. | Quashed as not relevant; not likely to lead to admissible evidence. |
| Drafts of legal pleadings, case documents, and legal research | Drafts and research may contain relevant material or context. | These materials were not used in proceedings and are not relevant. | Grants reconsideration for drafts, case documents, and research; not relevant and quashed. |
| Internal prosecutorial communications | Internal communications could illuminate handling of the related matter. | Communications relate to the criminal matter and not to the civil issue. | Granted reconsideration; quashed as not relevant to the civil case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir.1990) (reconsideration limits: error of law or fact; not for new arguments)
- Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D.Va.1983) (reconsideration standard; focus on error of apprehension)
- In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir.1996) (no new arguments; manifest error of law or fact standard)
- Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar Ltd., 804 F.2d 398 (7th Cir.1986) (limits on introducing new theories on reconsideration)
- WM High Yield v. O’Hanlon, 460 F.Supp.2d 891 (S.D.Ind.2006) (relevance and undue burden analysis for Rule 45 subpoenas)
- Granite State Ins. Co. v. Degerlia, 925 F.2d 189 (7th Cir.1991) (reconsideration principles and limitations)