Jordan v. Chapnick et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING 49 Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/24/2010. Any and all discovery shall be completed no later than 9/8/2010. (Jessen, A)

(PC) Jordan v. Chapnick et al

Doc. 58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 JAMES JORDAN, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 R. CHAPNICK, 12 Defendant. 13 / 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff James Jordan ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 16, 2010, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to supplement his responses to Defendant's interrogatories by August 18, 2010. (ECF No. 45.) In this Order, the Court acknowledged that its ruling "implicitly extend[ed] the deadline for the completion of discovery," previously set for May 17, 2010. (Id.; ECF No. 28.) After the Court's ruling, Defendant issued three subpoenas for Plaintiff's medical records. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Quash those subpoenas. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff asks the Court to quash the subpoenas because they were filed after the Court's May 17 discovery deadline. Plaintiff's argument is not compelling, however, because the Court explicitly extended the discovery deadline in its July 16 order. The Court ordered Plaintiff to supplement his responses to Defendant's interrogatories by August 18, 2010. It was foreseeable that Plaintiff's supplemental responses could (ECF No. 49) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH CASE NO. 1:07-cv-202-OW W -MJS (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

generate the need for additional discovery. Thus, the Court's extension of the discovery

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

deadline allowed Defendant additional time to issue the subpoenas challenged here. Additionally, it appears that, absent the instant Motion to Quash, Defendant would have completed his additional discovery by the August 18 deadline. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant served the subpoenas as part of a "fishing expedition" and that some of the information Defendant seeks in the subpoenas is privileged.1 Plaintiff does not dispute that he was treated at the two facilities subject to subpoena. Defendant represents that he seeks only Plaintiff's medical records relating to his eye injury and/or subsequent care. Because Plaintiff's eye condition is central to this action, Defendant is entitled to review any and all records related thereto. Plaintiff has failed to identify why such records are privileged or otherwise establish a basis for quashing the subpoenas. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Quash [ECF No. 49] is DENIED. Any and all discovery shall be completed not later than September 8, 2010. Further extensions will not be granted absent a showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ci4d6 August 24, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael J. Seng

To the extent that Plaintiff objects to Defendant's subpoena of his m e n ta l health records from D r . Abkar Gilani, such objection is m o o t because Defendant has withdrawn that subpoena. (See ECF No. 5 7 - 2 ¶ 7.)

1

-2-