John Doe v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN DOES 1-5,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-02371-RFL (AGT)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION TO QUASH
Re: Dkt. No. 86
The Court grants in part Plaintiff’s third motion to quash Regents’ subpoenas to third-
party medical providers.1
Medical Records. Consistent with Judge Lin’s order granting in part Plaintiff’s sec-
ond motion to quash, Regents amended their subpoenas to limit responsive medical records
to those concerning Plaintiff’s treatment for “dermatomysitis, diffuse scleroderma, and cal-
cinosis cutis, with resulting chronic wounds . . . from December 29, 2022 to, and including,
the present.” E.g., Dkt. 86-3 at 10. Judge Lin held that “[m]edical records (including billing
records, communications, and images) concerning dermatomysitis, diffuse scleroderma, and
1 After filing his third motion to quash, Plaintiff petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of
mandamus, challenging “a discovery and protective-order structure that permits irreversible
disclosure and litigation use of . . . [his] protected health information (‘PHI’).” Dkt. 97 at 5.
Despite the petition, the Court needn’t delay resolving Plaintiff’s motion. See Golden State
Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., No. 14-CV-3073-PJH, 2016 WL
10859439, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (“Since it is only in exceptional circumstances
that such petitions are granted, ‘the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for an
automatic stay of district court proceedings while a petition for writ of mandamus is pend-
ing.’” (quoting Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1416 (5th Cir. 1995))).
Case 3:24-cv-02371-RFL Document 99 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
calcinosis cutis [were] relevant to the treatment of the wound infection at issue in the UCSF
discharge, to the extent that they cover[ed] the time period from December 29, 2022, to
present.” Dkt. 81. Plaintiff argues that the phrase “with resulting chronic wounds” in the
amended subpoenas is too broad and will result in more responsive documents than what
Judge Lin permitted. Dkt. 86 at 12–13. The undersigned concludes otherwise. The phrase
“with resulting chronic wounds” reasonably targets records related to Plaintiff’s wound in-
fection. The amended subpoenas are sufficiently tailored to seek relevant medical records.
Billing Records. Inconsistent with Judge Lin’s order granting in part Plaintiff’s sec-
ond motion to quash, Regents’ amended subpoenas seek all billing records pertaining to
Plaintiff’s treatment from December 29, 2022, to present. E.g., Dkt. 86-3 at 10. Judge Lin
held that billing records were relevant if they concerned treatment for dermatomysitis, dif-
fuse scleroderma, or calcinosis cutis. See Dkt. 81. As written, the amended subpoenas aren’t
so limited. The motion to quash is granted in this respect. Regents must further amend their
subpoenas to target billing records related only to treatment for dermatomysitis, diffuse scle-
roderma, or calcinosis cutis.
Protective Order. Plaintiff objects to the fact that the amended subpoenas don’t tell
the subpoenaed third-party medical providers “that production is governed by the Protective
Order.” Dkt. 86 at 14. The subpoenas needn’t include such a notice. The subpoenaed medical
providers possess the records already. How they use or disclose those records is governed
by their own legal duties. The Protective Order ensures that when documents are produced,
the receiving party doesn’t unnecessarily share confidential information. See Protective Or-
der, 24-cv-09469-RFL, Dkt. 88 § 7.2 (allowing a “Receiving Party” to share confidential
information with a limited group of persons if those persons sign the “Acknowledgement
Case 3:24-cv-02371-RFL Document 99 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
and Agreement to Be Bound” by the Protective Order). Regents know that the Protective
Order applies to them; they don’t need to tell the third-party medical providers as much.
Rule 45(a)(4) – Advance Notice. Rule 45(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
dure requires the party issuing a document subpoena to serve notice and a copy of the sub-
poena on the opposing party before serving it. Plaintiff maintains that Regents didn’t comply
with this requirement. See Dkt. 86 at 10 (“They served [me] with copies of the subpoenas
. . . the same day [they] served the Providers.”). Assuming, without deciding, that Regents
didn’t comply with Rule 45(a)(4), the Court confirms that going forward they must do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02371-RFL Document 99 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 3