United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
N. STIVERS JUDGE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRENT BRENNENSTUHL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court are two related motions. DN 60 is the motion of
Defendant Henkel Corporation to compel compliance with a
subpoena issued to non-party Rivendell Behavioral Health. No
response has been filed to the motion. Also before the Court
is DN 66, Plaintiff Maysey's motion to quash the subpoena
and for entry of a protective order governing production and
disclosure of other discovery in the case. Henkel filed a
response at ¶ 69 and Maysey has not filed a reply.
Subpoena Issued to Rivendell
September 25, 2017, Henkel filed a notice that it had served
five subpoenas on physicians and healthcare entities, in
conformance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(D)(4) (DN 44). Among
those listed was Rivendell. Attached was a copy of the
subpoena requesting “any and all medical records
pertaining to Nathaniel Edward Maysey” (DN 44-1). The
production was specified to take place at counsel's
office in Fort Wright, Kentucky, at 10:00 a.m. on October 19,
2017. The subpoena was served by certified mail on September
27, 2017 (DN 60-1).
Motion to Compel Compliance
has not filed an objection of record or moved to quash the
subpoena. Henkel's counsel advises, however, that it did
respond with a letter indicating that it would provide the
requested medical information only with Maysey's written
authorization or in compliance with a court order (DN 60).
Henkel attached a letter from Darla Harwood, Rivendell's
Health Information Management Director in which she states
that the requested records are psychiatric records subject to
privilege under Ky. R. Evid. 507 (DN 60-2). Her letter sets
forth Rivendell's position that it will only provide the
records with a patient authorization or court order.
states that, as Plaintiff has been unwilling to execute a
release, it seeks judicial compulsion of Rivendell's
records. Henkel also noted that, as of the date of filing the
motion on November 10, 2017, Maysey had not objected to the
Motion to Quash
filed his motion on November 22, 2017 (DN 66). He brings the
motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), contending that
he has standing to move to have the subpoena quashed because
it seeks medical records in which he has a personal privacy
interest. Maysey advances several arguments for why Rivendell
should not be compelled to produce his medical records:
1. The records are afforded psychiatrist-patient privileged
status under Ky. R. Evid. 507, and, as this is a diversity
case, the Court is obliged to recognize the privilege;
2. The requested records bear no relevance to the subject of
this action, which involves injuries Maysey sustained in an
industrial accident. Maysey characterizes the nature of the
treatment received at Rivendell as “adolescent
3. The scope of the subpoena is excessive and would encompass
information which has no bearing on the issues in the case.
4. Production of the information would place Henkel in a
position of unfair advantage because Maysey's concern
over disclosure of the ...