Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ball v. Kasich

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

May 10, 2017

PHYLLIS BALL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN KASICH, et al., Defendants.

          Elizabeth P. Deavers Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Chief Judge

         This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena of Defendant Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities ("DODD") and/or Motion for an Order Limiting Discovery ("Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena") (ECF No. 82), Defendant DODD's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 83), Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 85), and Defendant DODD's Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 88). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena.

         I.

         This case was filed on March 31, 2016, by Plaintiffs Phyllis Ball, Antonio Butler, Caryl Mason, Richard Walters, Ross Hamilton, Nathan Narowitz, and the Ability Center of Greater Toledo on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are institutionalized or at serious risk of institutionalization in large Intermediate Care Facilities ("ICFs") with eight or more beds throughout Ohio. Plaintiffs allege violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1396n, and Olmsteadv. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) The action is brought against Defendants Governor John Kasich, Director of Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities Kevin Miller, Director of the Ohio Department of Medicaid John McCarthy, Director of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities John Martin, and the Ohio Association of County Boards Serving People with Developmental Disabilities. Id.

         Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' administration of Ohio's service system for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have left thousands of Ohioans unnecessarily institutionalized or at serious risk of institutionalization in violation of federal law. Plaintiffs assert that federal law entitles them to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate, but that Defendants have failed to provide sufficient integrated community-based services necessary to avoid their institutionalization in large ICFs. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief compelling Defendants to modify Ohio's service system for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities by providing reasonable access to integrated community-based services.

         On August 22, 2016, six individual Plaintiffs sought class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (ECF No. 42.) Nathan Narowitz was among the individuals purporting to represent the interests of the putative class. On September 21, 2016, this Court ordered the parties to proceed only with class-based discovery. (ECF No. 52.)

         On January 11, 2017, DODD served six subpoenas on various County Boards of Developmental Disabilities serving the six individually named Plaintiffs. These subpoenas sought medical records and case notes related to each of the named Plaintiffs who purport to represent the interests of the putative class as a whole. (ECF No. 82-1.)

         On January 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to withdraw Mr. Narowitz as a named Plaintiff. (ECF No. 80.) The Court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion the following day. (ECF No. 81.) Plaintiffs asked DODD to withdraw its subpoena for Mr. Narowitz' medical records. DODD refused to withdraw the subpoena. In response, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Quash Subpoena, which is ripe for review.

         II.

         Rule 45(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to quash subpoenas. The Rule requires that "[o]n timely motion, " the Court "must quash or modify a subpoena that.. . requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies" or "subjects a person to undue burden." Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A)(ii), (iii). The movant bears the burden of persuasion on a motion to quash the subpoenas. Black v. Kyle-Reno, 1:12-CV-503, 2014 WL 667788, at *l-2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2014) (citing Hendricks v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, 275 F.R.D. 251 (S.D. Ohio 2011)).

         III.

         Plaintiffs contend that they and Mr. Narowitz have standing to object to the subpoena on, inter alia, relevancy grounds.

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.