Glass v. Woodford et al

Filing 126

ORDER Denying Motion For Subpoena Duces Tecum (ECF No. 114 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/20/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DONALD GLASS,

10

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00098-AWI-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM

R. FIELDS, et al.,

(ECF No. 114)
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Donald Glass (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

17

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 5, 2009, against Defendants Hamilton, Robles, and Bautista for

18

use of excessive force; Defendants Riddle, and McDaniel for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

19

medical needs; and Defendants Hamilton, Bautista, Logue, Robles, Riddle, Cedillos, and McDaniel

20

for retaliation.1 (ECF No. 27.) A jury trial is set for April 15, 2013. On October 18, 2012, Plaintiff

21

submitted a subpoena duces tecum for non-parties to produce documents for trial and declaration.

22

ECF Nos. 114, 115.) Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on October 26, 2012. (ECF No.

23

118.)

24

Plaintiff is seeking, in part, the California Department of Corrections Use of Force

25

Handbook, all use of force and unnecessary force policies, mandates and procedures, incident reports

26

involving Plaintiff and review reports, policies and procedures on decontamination from chemical

27
1

28

On August 31, 2011, an order issued dismissing the Doe defendant, and on August 3, 2012, an order issued
dismissing Defendant Grandy for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process. (ECF Nos. 58, 106.)

1

1

exposure, internal affairs investigations regarding the defendant from 2002 to 2004, audio of the

2

interview with Plaintiff on October 7, 2004, video of excessive force interview on October 14, 2004,

3

audio of polygraph voice analysis conducted January 1 through 10, 2005, and x-rays of Plaintiff.

4

Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that discovery in this action is closed.

5

Subject to certain requirements set forth herein, Plaintiff may be entitled to the issuance of

6

a subpoena commanding the production of documents from non-parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.

7

However, the Court will consider granting such a request only if the documents sought from the non-

8

party are discoverable, are not equally available to Plaintiff, and are not obtainable from Defendants

9

through a request for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

10

The documents that Plaintiff is attempting to obtain are in the custody and control of

11

Defendants and are available through a request for production of documents. Although Plaintiff

12

requests the production for trial, these are requests for production of documents that Plaintiff should

13

have requested during the discovery process. A party may not use a trial subpoena to obtain

14

documents that were known during the discovery process. nSight, Inc. V. PeopleSoft, Inc., No. 3:04-

15

cv-3836-MMC (MEJ), 2006 WL 988807, *3-4 (N.D.Cal. April 13, 2006); see Rice v. United States,

16

164 F.R.D. 556, 557-559 (N.D.Okl. 1995) (quashing subpoenas duces tecum issued after the

17

discovery cut off date as an improper attempt to engage in discovery after the discovery period

18

ended.).

19

In this instance, Plaintiff was advised in the discovery and scheduling order issued August

20

13, 2010, that all discovery was required to be completed prior to the discovery cut-off date of May

21

13, 2011. (ECF No. 34.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum is an improper

22

attempt to conduct discovery after the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena

23

duces tecum is untimely, and is HEREBY DENIED.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

November 20, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2