Miller v. Rufion, et al

Filing 107

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Subpoena 97 , signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 10/29/2010. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Miller v. Rufion, et al Doc. 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's ex parte motion for subpoenas. [Doc. No. 97.] 16 Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as discussed herein. 17 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis 19 may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of documents from non20 parties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. Such a request is not automatic, however. The request must be timely. 21 The documents which are the subject of the subpoena must be non-privileged and relevant. See 22 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. 23 III. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff was advised in this Court's Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 27] that "all discovery under 26 Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be 27 initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the 28 cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal 1 08-1233 BTM (WMc) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GERALD L. MILLER, JR. CDCR #C-92075 Plaintiff, v. O. RUFION; MOONGA, R.N., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08-1233 BTM (WMc) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR SUBPOENA [Doc. No. 97] 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 Rules of Civil Procedure." Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiff's request is untimely. Discovery closed on October 6, 2010, however Plaintiff's request was not filed in time for the subpoenas to be issued and and a response to be returned before passage of the October 6, 2010 deadline. Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided a description of the specific documents he is seeking. The Court has no way to determine if the documents Plaintiff seeks are different from the documents for which he received a subpoena in May of this year. See Court's May 10, 2010 Order at Doc. No. 54. Accordingly Plaintiff's ex parte motion for subpoenas is DENIED. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER THEREON For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's ex parte motion for subpoenas is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 29, 2010 Hon. William McCurine, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court 2 08-1233 BTM (WMc)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?