Lopez v. Florez et al

Filing 157

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 145 Notice of Tardy Receipt of Subpoena Due to Defendant's Mailing Process (Construed by the Court as a Motion to Quash the Subpoena) and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad-Testificandum, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/16/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW LOPEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FLOREZ, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01975- LJO - JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
TARDY RECEIPT OF SUBPOENA DUE TO
DEFENDANT’S MAILING PROCESS
(CONSTRUED BY THE COURT AS A MOTION
TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA) AND PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS
AD-TESTIFICANDUM
(Doc. 145)

18
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “notice of tardy receipt of subpoena due to Defendant’s mailing

19
20
21

process.”1 (Doc. 145). It appears in filing this notice, Plaintiff seeks to be present when the documents
are produced and, therefore, seeks an order for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. (Doc. 145).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 permits a party to command the production of documents from a third party

22
23
24
25

where an undue burden or expense is not imposed. Subsection (c)(2)(A) specifically provides that a
party “need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear
for a deposition, hearing, or trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A).
Here, Plaintiff waived any objection to the production of his medical records by initiating the

26
27
28

present matter in which he placed his medical condition at issue. Thus, Plaintiff has no basis upon
1

The Court has continually admonished Plaintiff to cease filing frivolous discovery motions.

1

1

which to object to the production of his medical records and shows no actual injury by the lengthy

2

processing of his mail. In any event, Plaintiff is not the producing party and has no burden in the

3

production of these documents.
Additionally, it is noted that the document attached to Plaintiff’s motion is a Fed.R.Civ.P. 45

4
5

subpoena for production of documents. (Doc. 145 at 4).

The subpoena indicates only that the

6

requested documents are to be produced by a certain time and date and submitted to the third-party

7

copying service.2 Id. Plaintiff’s presence was not required on March 28, 2013.3 Thus, the motion for a

8

writ of habeus corpus ad testificandum is DENIED.
ORDER

9

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

April 16, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

DEAC_Signature-END:

15

9j7khijed

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

26
27
28

The Court notes that it is customary for parties to litigation to utilize third party copying services for the purposes of
reducing the costs of litigation and improving the efficiency of the parties’ workload. Plaintiff demonstrates no prejudice in
the use of a third party copying service. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection to the use of the third party copying
service.
3
Nevertheless, the Court reminds counsel to take steps to ensure the confidentiality of information contained on the
medical documents, including Plaintiff’s social security number.

2