Free Order on Motion for Issuance - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff seeks records from Arizona Dept. of Health Services relating to the suicides of Loren Spellers and Peter Hobkirk-Frerich and also records of grievances or appeals related to claims that ValueOptions failed to provide adequate medical care. Plaintiff seeks employment records from New Arizona Family, The Salvation Army, and St. Luke's Hospital detailing complaints or grievances regarding Defendants Crumbley and Marshall.
Document 181 Filed 12/08/2005 Page 1 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shannon Michael Clark, Plaintiff, vs. ValueOptions, Inc., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 03-1344-PHX-EHC (MS) ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas and Order for Service of Subpoenas" (Doc. # 176). Plaintiff moved this Court on September 29, 2005 for five subpoenas to various entities (Doc. # 152). This Court granted that motion, in part, on November 3, 2005 (Doc. # 166). Plaintiff now requests an additional four subpoenas in this case to: (1) Arizona Department of Health Services-Division of Behavioral Health Services; (2) New Arizona Family, Inc.; (3) The Salvation Army; and (4) St. Luke's Hospital.1 Plaintiff's request will be denied. This Court has already issued five

subpoenas on Plaintiff's behalf related to information regarding Defendant

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ValueOptions. Plaintiff had every opportunity to request a subpoena for Arizona Department of Health Services-Division of Behavioral Health Services at the time of his original motion, and Plaintiff has offered no reason why that subpoenas should be issued now. Moreover, Plaintiff has already responded to Defendant

ValueOptions' Motion for Summary Judgment, and any further discovery at this point will not be useful. With respect to the other three requests for subpoenas related to Defendants Crumbley and Marshall, Plaintiff's request will be denied as premature. These Defendants have not yet been properly served. If Defendants Crumbley and Marshall are properly served, Plaintiff may re-file his motion for subpoenas at that time. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's "Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas and Order for Service of Subpoenas" (Doc. # 176) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2005.

-2Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 181 Filed 12/08/2005 Page 2 of 2