Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Dobbs

Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Dobbs

Opinion

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel State Legislators To Comply With Subpoenas Duces Tecum And For A Limited Extension Of The Discovery Deadline [207]. A response [222] was filed by the non-parties served¹ with the subject subpoenas, namely, Mississippi Senators Chris McDaniel, Angela Burks Hill, and Joey Fillingame ("the Senators") and Mississippi House of Representatives Clerk Andrew Ketchings [*4]  (on behalf of the Mississippi House Public Health and Human Services Committee) and Mississippi Senate Secretary Buck Clarke and Senate Clerk Amanda Frusha (on behalf of the Mississippi Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee) ("the Committees"). A response [224] was also filed by Defendants Thomas E. Dobbs, M.D., M.P.H. and Kenneth Cleveland, M.D. ("the State Defendants"). Plaintiffs filed a reply [226]. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motion [207] should be denied.

The subpoenas served on the Senators and Committees sought production of documents related to abortion legislation. Specifically, the subpoenas demanded: (1) all documents "considered"² by "You" (as defined in the subpoenas to the Senators) and the Committees (as defined in the subpoenas to the Committees) "related to abortion or women's reproductive health;" (2) all documents "relating to the drafting, revising, or passage of"³ 2013 S.B. 2795, 2019 S.B. 2116, and "any other proposed legislation involving abortion" from the 2013 and 2019 Mississippi Legislative Sessions; (3) all documents "reflecting any Communications" between "You" (as defined therein) and the Committees (as defined therein) and six categories of people and [*5]  entities listed in the subpoena, "concerning" 2013 S.B. 2795, 2019 S.B. 2116, and "any other proposed legislation involving abortion" from the 2013 and 2019 Mississippi Legislative Sessions;⁴ and (4) in the subpoenas to the Committees only, "all documents reflecting comments or assessments by [the Committees] related to [their] review of legislation concerning abortion." [222-1] at 11; [222-2] at 11; [222-3] at 11; [222-4] at 11; [222-5] at 11, 20.

The Senators and the Committees object to the subpoenas on the grounds that they are facially overbroad, impose an undue burden, and seek information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of this case. They also contend that Plaintiff's motion is untimely under L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2)(C), the requested documents are protected from disclosure by the legislative privilege, and they should not be required to respond to the subpoenas outside the current discovery deadline. Because the Court finds that the subpoenas are facially overbroad, would impose an undue burden, and are not proportional to the needs of this case, it is unnecessary to address the Senators' and the Committees' other objections or contentions.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.