124 F. Supp. 3d 811
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Dr. Uppal, a physician, was terminated from her Lutheran General Hospital internal medicine residency in November 2005 for alleged serious misconduct; the termination letter was signed by Dr. Natalie Correia.
- In August 2008 and again in August 2009, Rosalind Franklin University (the University) informed Uppal it would not sponsor further residency applications, citing a pattern of harassing, threatening, and defamatory emails to University personnel.
- Uppal later received criminal convictions (including a 2010 felony and a 2015 guilty plea to email harassment) tied to threats and harassment directed at various individuals.
- In 2015 Uppal sued the University for breach of fiduciary duty (she dropped her breach of contract claim). The complaint alleges the University refused to cooperate with her residency applications beginning in 2008.
- Uppal issued a subpoena to non-party Dr. Correia seeking information about incidents from 2005 at Lutheran General; Correia and the University moved to quash the subpoena.
- The court concluded that Correia’s knowledge about 2005 events is irrelevant to the 2008–09 refusal by the University and that compelling her deposition would impose undue burden without proportional benefit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subpoena to non-party Dr. Correia for information about 2005 events is discoverable | Correia may have information relevant to Uppal’s overall conduct and history that could bear on University’s actions | Correia’s 2005 knowledge is unrelated to University’s 2008 refusal; subpoena is burdensome to a non-party | Quash granted — Correia’s testimony about 2005 is irrelevant and imposes undue burden |
| Applicability of Rule 45/Rule 26 protections for non-parties | Subpoena is proper to investigate facts | Non-parties merit special solicitude; discovery limited to claims/defenses in pleadings | Court emphasized non-party protection and limited discovery scope under Rules 26 and 45 |
| Relevance standard post-Rule 26 amendments | Discovery may be broad | Discovery must be relevant to a party’s claims or defenses and proportional | Court applied narrow relevance standard and proportionality to limit discovery |
| Standing of defendant University to seek quash of subpoena to non-party | (implicit) University sought protection | Generally, only the subpoenaed non-party must move to quash absent independent interest | Court noted majority rule that non-party should bring motion, but quashed on merits for Correia’s motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Israel Travel Advis. Serv. v. Israel Iden. Tours, 61 F.3d 1250 (7th Cir. 1995) (observing that evidence may be true but irrelevant)
- Heidelberg Americas, Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., 333 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2003) (Rule 45(d) quash/modify is mandatory when subpoena imposes undue burden)
- Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708 (1st Cir. 1998) (non-parties entitled to special solicitude in discovery)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (non-parties are not exempt from providing evidence when appropriate)
- Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) (district courts must control discovery and protect parties/persons from undue burden)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (scope of discovery limited by relevance and court control)
- Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014) (judicial case-management authority should check over-discovery)
- Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 2003) (courts may restrict discovery based on relevance)