Court Quashes Subpoena For Records As Too Broad in Scope

In the case of The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. K&K Fire Protection Enterprises, Inc., No. 6060-CV-2021 (C.P. Monroe. Co. Nov. 20, 2024 C. Daniel Higgins, Jr., J.), the court laid out the law pertinent to a Motion to Quash a Subpoena and related Motions for Protective Orders on records sought by subpoenas.

This case arose out of a fire loss. The Plaintiff claimed that inadequate maintenance by the Defendant was the cause of the fire. 

At issue before the court was a subpoena that the Defendant had issued to another entity seeking maintenance records related to the fire protection systems on the premises.

The entity that was subpoenaed asserted that the records in question no longer existed.

The court denied that entity’s Motion to Quash the subpoena and for a Protective Order as to those records. The court noted that it expected an affidavit from that entity to confirm, under oath, that the records requested no longer existed.

The subpoena at issue also sought additional other records that the court found were not relevant to the claims against the Defendant. The court found that the subpoena requests for those other records were too broad in scope.  As such, the court quashed the subpoena for those records after find that the subpoenas submitted to the entity that was requested to produce the records amounted to unreasonable annoyance embarrassment oppression, burden, or expense.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert. (Jan. 8, 2025).

Motion To Quash Subpoena Addressed in Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Smith v. Pancholy, 16 - CV - 1789 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 22, 2018 Nealon, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part Motions to Quash Subpoenas filed by medical malpractice Defendants.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff initiated this wrongful death action following the death of the Plaintiff’s husband after a cardiac procedure.  

During the course of discovery, the Plaintiff served subpoenas on non-parties, which included the hospitals at which the decedent was treated.  The subpoenas requested the production of any and all information regarding screens, data, visuals, monitors, televisions, and computers that were available for use in a specified lab for doctors to review, observe, or use to assist during any cardiology procedure.  The subpoenas requested such information over a four (4) year period. 

The hospitals argued that the requests were overly broad and vague and that the requests caused an unreasonable annoyance and embarrassment by potentially disclosing confidential information about other patients. The hospitals also asserted that the subpoena created an unreasonable burden and expense to locate, gather and produce all such documents and items.  

The court found that the requests spanning the four (4) year period was indeed overly broad.    The subpoenas were also found to lack reasonable particularity. The court additionally noted that, even if private medical information was redacted, the Plaintiff’s requests would result in an unreasonable burden and expense to the hospital.  

Given that the only potentially relevant information in the specified lab were the screens, visuals, monitors and computers that were available for a physician to utilize during the month of the Plaintiff’s husband’s surgery, the court allowed discovery with respect to that month only and otherwise quashed the subpoenas in all other respects.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK