Byron LaMonte Wattree v. Matthew Cates et al

Filing 53

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato: denying 51 Motion to Compel (see Order for details) (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 14-219-JGB (KK)

Title

Byron LaMonte Wattree v. Matthew Cates et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

June 10, 2015

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge

Deb Taylor

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Dkt. 51]

I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Byron LaMonte Wattree (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, has filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which
asserts Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against numerous prison
officials at Ironwood State Prison (“ISP”) in Blythe, California. (ECF Docket. No.
(“dkt.”) 7). The FAC arises from allegations the defendants transferred Plaintiff to the
Sensitive Needs Yard at the California Institution for Men prison facility in Chino,
California. (Id.). Plaintiff claims the defendants disregarded a substantial risk of harm to
Plaintiff from other inmates at the facility, when arranging the transfer. (Id.). As a result,
the FAC claims Plaintiff was stabbed by another inmate in the facility in September 2012.
(Id.).
On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Civil Subpoena in a Civil Case”
(“Subpoena”). (Dkt. 33). In the Subpoena, Plaintiff requested the Court order the
Internal Affairs Bureau of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”)—a party not named as a defendant in this action—to produce any and all
documents related to its investigation of his transfer (alleged to have taken place in
November 2011). (Id.). The Subpoena was directed to the Internal Affairs Bureau’s
address in Sacramento, California. (Id.). On December 3, 2014, the Subpoena was
issued by the Deputy Clerk of this Court. (Id.). On March 24, 2015, the Court directed
service of the subpoena on the Internal Affairs Bureau in Sacramento by the U.S.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 14-219-JGB (KK)

Date

Title

June 10, 2015

Byron LaMonte Wattree v. Matthew Cates et al.

Marshal. (Dkt. 47).
On May 5, 2015, CDCR filed Objections to the Subpoena, claiming it is
procedurally deficient, places undue burden and expense upon the responding party, and
seeks privileged information. (Dkt. 48).
On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel CDCR to Respond to the
Subpoena, contending CDCR’s objections to the Subpoena are meritless. (Dkt. 51). On
June 8, 2015, CDCR filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, asserting, inter alia, that
the Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant Motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(2). (Dkt. 52).
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 governs motions to compel discovery. In
particular, Rule 37(a)(2) provides that “a motion for an order to a nonparty must be made
in the court where the discovery is or will be taken.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2).
Here, Plaintiff’s instant Motion requests that CDCR be compelled to produce the
documents noted in the Subpoena. See Mot. at 1. Because CDCR is not a party to this
action, under Rule 37(a)(2), Plaintiff’s Motion must be made in “the court where the
discovery is or will be taken.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2). The Subpoena requests the
production of documents in the custody of the CDCR Internal Affairs Bureau, which is
located in Sacramento, California. Thus, because Sacramento falls within the Eastern
District of California, the Court cannot consider the instant Motion. See Todd v.
Lamarque, No. C 03-3995 SBA, 2008 WL 2095513, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2008)
(noting Rule 37(a)(2) required a prisoner to file a motion to compel non-party CDCR to
comply with subpoena in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel CDCR
to Respond to Subpoena is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2