Garcia v. Mix et al

Filing 113

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum 110 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/14/15. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO GARCIA, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. M. MIX, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02097-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (ECF No. 110) 17 18 I. Procedural Background 19 Plaintiff Guillermo Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 21 second amended complaint against Defendants Saylor and McCue for denial of access to the court. 22 23 On January 10, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, which set the deadline to complete discovery as September 10, 2013. (ECF No. 46.) 24 On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants’ answers to request for 25 admissions, interrogatories and request for production of documents. (ECF No. 54.) On October 24, 26 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel without prejudice because Plaintiff’s discovery 27 requests were untimely. However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend the 28 Discovery and Scheduling Order to extend the discovery cut-off date. (ECF No. 60.) 1 On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to 1 2 extend the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 73.) On April 9, 2014, the Court partially granted Plaintiff’s 3 request and extended the discovery deadline an additional fifty days to permit Plaintiff to obtain 4 responses to requests for admissions and interrogatories from Defendant McCue and to file any 5 necessary motion to compel. (ECF No. 84.) 6 On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his requests for 7 admissions and interrogatories from Defendant McCue. (ECF No. 85.) Defendants opposed the 8 motion on June 9, 2014, and Plaintiff replied on August 19, 2014. (ECF Nos. 94, 100.) On October 9 27, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses. (ECF No. 106.) 10 On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of 11 Appeals regarding the Court’s denial of his motion to compel. (ECF No. 108.) On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed letters and a subpoena, which appear to seek documents 12 13 from CourtCall Remote Court Appearances regarding a court call on August 22, 2008. (ECF No. 14 110.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for subpoena duces tecum to obtain certain 15 documents. Defendants did not file an opposition and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 16 230(l). 17 II. 18 Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued in this action, the deadline for Plaintiff 19 to complete all discovery, with the exception of interrogatories and requests for admissions directed to 20 Defendant McCue, expired on September 10, 2013. Plaintiff now seeks third-party discovery after the 21 expiration of the discovery deadline set forth in the scheduling order. 22 Motion for Subpoeanas Duces Tecum Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 23 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the 24 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 25 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be 26 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the 27 inquiry should end. Id. 28 2 1 Plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence in seeking to obtain a third-party subpoena. 2 According to the record in this matter, Plaintiff made no attempt to obtain a subpoena until December 3 2014, which is more than one year after the close of discovery. Plaintiff has not explained the delay 4 and has not established good cause to modify the scheduling order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request 5 for a subpoena duces tecum is untimely and shall be denied. 6 III. 7 For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena duces tecum is DENIED. 8 9 10 Conclusion and Order IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara January 14, 2015 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?