The opinion of the court was delivered by: Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge
This action comes before the Court based on Concentra Health Services, Inc.'s Motion to Quash Subpoena . Concentra Health Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Concentra") is a non-partry to this case. Upon a thorough review of each parties' filings, the applicable law and record herein, the Court finds that Concentra's motion  shall be granted.
Following a medical leave from his employment with defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (hereinafter "Amtrak"), plaintiff David Stevens began, but did not complete, a drug test at Concentra's Lanham medical facility as part of his return to duty physical examination. Stevens v. Natl. R.R. Passenger Corp., 2006 WL 1550006 at **4-5 (D.D.C. June 2, 2006). As part of this drug test, Stevens submitted a urine specimen to Demetria Hudley, a Concentra employee. (Stevens Decl. Ex. 14.) Hudley notified Steves that his specimen did not meet the Department of Transportation's Federal guidelines for urine collection because it was outside the acceptable temperature range of 90-100 degrees Fahrenheit. (Id.) She then explained that, in accordance with the guidelines, he would have to provide a second urine specimen immediately and under the observation of a male chaperone. Stevens acknowledge these instructions in writing.
According to Mr. Stevens' version of events, he was willing to provide the second specimen, but Concentra employees made him wait more than ninety minutes. Stevens, 2006 WL 1550006 at **4-5. He asserts that, because of his HIV-positive status, he feared that something was wrong with his urine and that this indicated that something was wrong medically. Id. He therefore told Beaty that he had to go to the hospital. (Stevens Decl. Ex. 14.) She told him that he needed to provide the second sample prior to leaving. (Id.) He gave her his cell phone number, departed the facility, and went to the George Washington University Hospital Emergency Room where he was diagnosed with bronchitis. Stevens, 2006 WL 155006 at *7.
Concentra offers a different version of events:
The first urine drug screen collection was not within body temperature range (90F to 100F). Mr. Stevens was then provided with DOT Federal Guidelines for unusual collection. He was then processed for this physical - it should be noted that his temperature at that time was 97.8F. He then informed another Concentra staff member, Ebonie Beaty, that he was unable to stay at the center any longer as he had another doctor appointment. Ebonie informed him that he needed to submit a second specimen before leaving. He stated that he could not and that he would return, which is unacceptable according to DOT Federal Guidelines. Ebonie called the company and left a message. The aforementioned information was presented to Ms. Margaret Terney of Amtrak on 12/14/04.
In January 2004, Amtrak determined that Stevens actions violated its drug policy.
Stevens, 2006 WL 1550006 at *5. It subsequently terminated his employment. Id. In his second amended complaint, however, Stevens claims this reason was a pretext and that Amtrak actually terminated his employment in retaliation for a complaint he had filed against the company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
On December 28, 2006, Stevens' counsel issued a subpoena to Concentra seeking documents related to Stevens' return to duty examination and drug test. The attachment to the subpoena requested:
Please provide all documents relating to Mr. David Stevens, including but not limited to substance testing of him. Provide all documents relating to staff attendance at your Lanham facility on December 13, 2004, including but not limited to documents showing which personnel was in attendance on that day, and such personnel's arrivals and departures from the Lanham facility. Provide all documents relating to telephonic, mail, or electronic mail contacts internally within your company, and between your Lanham facility and AMTRAK's human resources or personnel department between December 13 and 20, 2004, that related or might have related to Mr. David Stevens.
(Concentra Mem. Supp. Ex. 1.) According to Stevens' counsel, the subpoena was served on January 3, 2007. (Pl.'s Opp'n and Resp. 2.) Stevens's counsel sought the production of the documents by January 5, 2007. (Concentra Mem. Supp. Ex. 1.) As of February 21, 2007, Concentra had not yet responded. (Pl.'s Opp'n and Resp. 2.) Consequently, Stevens' counsel contacted Concentra and requested a response. (Id.) Concentra notified Stevens' counsel that neither the subpoena nor any of the accompanying documents contained information, such as date of birth or social security number, sufficient for Concentra to locate records pertaining to Stevens' visit. (Concentra Mem. Supp. 2.) On February 22, 2007, Stevens' counsel sent to Concentra an authorization for the release of records that contained the identifying information. (Concentra Mem. Supp. Ex. 2.) Concentra subsequently gathered all of the medical records it could find that related to Stevens and sent them to Stevens' counsel on February 23, 2007. (Concentra Mem. Supp. 2.)
On February 23, 2007, Stevens' counsel issued a second subpoena to Concentra seeking the production of additional documents. (Concentra Mem. Supp. 2; Pl.'s Opp'n and ...