Sinclair v. Salisbury Police Officers et al, No. 1:2013cv01735 - Document 57 (D. Md. 2014)

Court Description: LETTER OPINION granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 50 Request to Quash Defendants' Subpoena served on PRMC filed by Daryl James Sinclair. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson on 12/22/2014. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Sinclair v. Salisbury Police Officers et al Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Chambers of J. Mark Coulson U.S. Magistrate Judge 101 West Lombard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 MDD_JMCChambers@mdd.uscourts.gov Phone: (410) 962-4953 Fax: (410) 962-2985 December 22, 2014 LETTER OPINION TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD Re: Sinclair v. Salisbury Police Officers et al. Civil No. 13-CV-1735-GLR Dear Counsel: The Court has before it Plaintiff’s letter requesting that the subpoena served by Defendants on Peninsula Regional Medical Center (“PRMC”) be quashed or limited in scope. (ECF No. 50). Plaintiff argues that the subpoena is overbroad and intrusive on the grounds that it is unlimited in time or scope. (Id.) Plaintiff further argues that only “relevant” medical records should be produced pursuant to the subpoena and defines relevant as relating to the injuries alleged in the Complaint (i.e. injuries to his face, mouth and psychological trauma). (Id.) Plaintiff also requests that a protective order be entered. (Id.) Defendants accept Plaintiff’s proposed time limitation (dating back to 2007) and are amenable to a protective order but argue that the proposed subject matter scope is too limited. (ECF No. 54). This Court agrees that the subject matter of the subpoena should not be limited as requested by Plaintiff. Indeed it is impossible to determine the relevance of a medical record without first having an opportunity to review it. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to quash Defendants’ subpoena served on PRMC is granted in part and denied in part and the Court makes the following specific rulings: • • • The scope of the subpoena shall be limited in time to 2007 through the present; The Parties are directed to confer and execute a protective order within 15 days of the entry of this order; As to the personal information Plaintiff asserts is contained in Defendants’ filing (ECF No. 541), the Clerk will be directed to disable the link to that document. Northern Division • 4228 U.S. Courthouse • 101 W. Lombard Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21201• 410-962-2600 Southern Division • 200 U.S. Courthouse • 6500 Cherrywood Lane • Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 • 301-344-0660 Visit the U.S. District Court’s Website at www.mdd.uscourts.gov Dockets.Justia.com Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it as such. Sincerely yours, /s/ J. Mark Coulson United States Magistrate Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.