1

 The court ordered Tenet and Conseco to file a joint status report detailing their respective positions regarding

the subject matter of this discovery dispute. See Order, 2/15/06 at 2, ¶ 2. Notwithstanding the clear language of this

order, the parties submitted separate status reports.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SIERRA VISTA REGIONAL MEDICAL §

CENTER, ET AL. §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-06-MC-016-L 

§

CONSECO SENIOR HEALTH §

INSURANCE COMPANY § 

§

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Tenet Healthcare Corporation ("Tenet") has filed objections and a motion to quash a Rule

45 subpoena served by Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company ("Conseco") in connection with

a federal lawsuit pending in the Central District of California. Sierra Vista Regional Medical

Center, et al. v. Conseco Senior Health Ins. Co., No. SAC-V05-676 SHS. The subpoena directs

Tenet, a Dallas-based company who is not a party to the California litigation, to produce a corporate

representative to give testimony on nine discrete issues. Tenet contends that the subpoena is overly

broad, unduly burdensome, requires the disclosure of trade secrets and other privileged information,

is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the underlying action,

and does not allow sufficient time for compliance. The parties have briefed their respective

positions in separate status reports filed on February 23, 2006,1

 and the motion is ripe for

determination.

 

 Case 3:06-mc-00016-BD Document 8 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 386
2

 That the parties did not specifically identify this as a contested issue in the Rule 26(f) status report filed in

the California action does not preclude Conseco's right to conduct discovery. See FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1) ("Parties may

obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party[.]") (emphasis

added).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) authorizes a court to quash or modify a subpoena if, inter alia, the

subpoena fails to allow a reasonable time for compliance, requires the disclosure of privileged or

other protected matter, or subjects a person to undue burden. See FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(3)(A). A

party seeking such relief must meet the "heavy burden of establishing that compliance with the

subpoena would be 'unreasonable and oppressive.'" See Hussey v. State Farm Lloyds Ins. Co., 216

F.R.D. 591, 596 (E.D. Tex. 2003), quoting Williams v. City of Dallas, 178 F.R.D. 103, 109 (N.D.

Tex. 1998). Although Tenet raises numerous objections to the Rule 45 subpoena in its original

motion, only two arguments are made in the status report: (1) the discovery sought is not relevant

to any of the claims or defenses in the underlying action; and (2) it would be unduly burdensome

to comply with the subpoena. (See Tenet Stat. Rep. at 2-3). With respect to the first issue, the court

cannot say that the topics identified in the subpoena are beyond the scope of permissible discovery.

Indeed, Conseco claims that a central issue in the California lawsuit, which was filed by a Tenet

hospital to collect insurance payments allegedly owed by Conseco, is whether the charges submitted

by the hospital were "customary and reasonable." (See Conseco Stat. Rep. at 4).2 The subpoena

served on Tenet seeks testimony from a corporate representative relevant to that issue. Nor has

Tenet specifically alleged, much less proved, how it would be unduly burdensome to comply with

the subpoena.

For these reasons, Tenet's motion to quash the Rule 45 subpoena is denied. The parties are

directed to confer on a date, time, and place for the deposition of a Tenet representative. If the

parties are unable to agree, the court will schedule the deposition by separate order.

SO ORDERED.

 

 Case 3:06-mc-00016-BD Document 8 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 387
DATED: February 24, 2006.

 

 Case 3:06-mc-00016-BD Document 8 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 388