Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Collins v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 22, 2017

LORI COLLINS, a/k/a LORI BROWN-SNYDER, as guardian of BRITTANY SNYDER, a protected person Plaintiff,




         This matter comes before the Court on Non-Party Arcadia Home Care and Staffing's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, filed November 25, 2016.[1] (Docket no. 34.) Defendant Progressive Michigan Insurance Company, which issued the subpoena, filed a Response (docket no. 38), and Arcadia filed a Reply (docket no. 40.) The Motion was referred to the undersigned for consideration. (Docket no. 36.) The Court has reviewed the pleadings and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The Court is now ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

         I. BACKGROUND

         This is an action for no-fault auto insurance benefits. Plaintiff Brittany Snyder sustained serious injuries following an accident on February 26, 2006. She contends that Defendant has unreasonably refused to pay or delayed making payments to Plaintiff for “reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations, for her care, recovery or rehabilitation, ” including “rent for accessible housing, modifications to accessible housing, guardian services, attendant care, and medical care, ” in violation of the Michigan No-Fault Insurance Act, M.C.L. §§ 500.3142 & .3148. (Docket no. 1 at 3.) Arcadia is one of Plaintiff's many healthcare providers, and has provided services to Plaintiff in Plaintiff's home. (See docket no. 38-5, Home Health Certification and Plan of Care for Brittany Snyder.)

         Defendant served a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum on non-party Deborah Hoffman, the lead Clinical Services Supervisor for Arcadia, on November 10, 2016. (Docket no. 34-1.) Ms. Hoffman claims she has not provided any direct care to Plaintiff, but Ms. Hoffman has at least completed Plans of Care for Plaintiff. (Docket no. 34 at 9; docket no. 38-5.) The subpoena states that Ms. Hoffman's deposition would take place on November 30, 2016, and asks Ms. Hoffman to bring “[a]ny and all documents in your possession pertaining to captioned lawsuit.” (Docket no. 34-1 at 3.)

         On November 25, 2016, Arcadia filed the instant Motion to Quash. (Docket no. 34.) Arcadia contends that the subpoena violates the “privacy rule, ” of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 45 C.F.R. § 164.512 (“HIPAA”), and furthermore, that the subpoena is vague and overbroad and imposes an undue burden on Ms. Hoffman and Arcadia, who are not parties to this action.


         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs subpoenas and provides that the court must, upon motion, quash or modify a subpoena if the subpoena fails to allow a reasonable time to comply, requires a non-party to travel more than 100 miles, requires disclosure of privileged or protected materials, or subjects a person to undue burden. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A). Rule 26(b) defines the scope of discovery for a subpoena issued pursuant to Rule 45, and “allows a party to obtain discovery concerning any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Systems Prods. & Solutions, Inc. v. Scramlin, No. 13-CV-14947, 2014 WL 3894385, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2014). Moreover, any order compelling production “must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii).

         HIPAA generally protects individuals' healthcare information from disclosure by their healthcare providers. 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a). However, a covered healthcare provider may “disclose protected health information . . . [i]n response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other process, ” if:

(A) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance . . . from the party seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to ensure that the individual who is the subject of the protected health information that has been requested has been given notice of the request . . . .

45 C.F.R. § 154.512(e)(1)(ii)(A). The rule further provides that:

(iii) . . . a covered entity receives satisfactory assurances from a party seeking protected health information if the covered entity receives from such party a written statement and accompanying documentation demonstrating that:
(A) The party requesting such information has made a good faith attempt to provide written notice to the ...

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.