Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 131

ORDER DENYING 125 Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas Duces Tecum, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/5/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
Y. A. YATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM
(ECF No. 125)

17

I.

Background

18

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

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

20

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on May 7, 2012, against Defendant Mendez for excessive

21

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Daley, Samonte, Nichols, Valdez

22

and Gonzales for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

23

On April 14, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file any motion

24

seeking a third party subpoena. (ECF No. 117.) On May 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed subpoenas.

25

Consistent with this Court’s practice, the subpoenas were construed as a motion seeking the issuance

26

of subpoenas deuces tecum. On May 15, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of

27

subpoenas without prejudice to re-filing subject to certain requirement. (ECF No. 120.) On June 19,

28

2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting issuance of subpoenas duces tecum for the
1

1

production of documents. (ECF No. 125.) Defendants did not file a response and the motion is

2

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

3

II.

Discussion

4

As Plaintiff was previously informed, subject to certain requirements, he is entitled to the

5

issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of documents from a non-party, Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

45, and to service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal, 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). The Court will

7

consider granting such a request only if the documents sought from the non-party are not equally

8

available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a request for the production of

9

documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. A request for the issuance of a records subpoena requires Plaintiff to:

10

(1) identify with specificity the documents sought and from whom, and (2) make a showing that the

11

records are only obtainable through that third party.

12

In this case, the Court expressly instructed that any renewed motion for the issuance of third-

13

party subpoenas must (1) set forth the documents requested and from whom; (2) demonstrate that the

14

documents are only obtainable through the third party; and (3) establish the relevance of the requested

15

documents to any claim or defense. (ECF No. 120, p. 3.)

16

Plaintiff’s moving papers, which appear to have been prepared by an attorney (Dale

17

McKinney), blatantly disregard the Court’s instructions. Plaintiff does not identify the requested

18

documents or demonstrate their relevance to his claims or defenses. Instead, he refers the Court to the

19

attached subpoenas and asserts that the requests contained therein are not overly broad or likely to

20

result in the production of irrelevant documents. (ECF No. 125, p. 4.) He also asserts that the

21

requested documents “will show that the Defendant has established a pattern of conduct from past

22

practices that will show the treatment he subjected the Plaintiff to is consistent with previous conduct.”

23

(ECF No. 125, p. 4.) Plaintiff’s statement of purported relevance is not availing. Rather, Plaintiff

24

appears to place the burden on the Court to sift through the ten subpoenas he has submitted and

25

determine whether the requests contained in them appropriately fall within the scope of this action and

26

are relevant to a claim or defense. The Court declines to expend its already taxed resources to do so.

27

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that the requested documents are

28

relevant to any claim or defense in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Plaintiff also has not established
2

1

that the third party requests are limited such that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery does

2

not outweigh its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

3

Additionally, the Court declines to correlate the document requests to any prior document

4

request served on Defendants. Although Plaintiff contends that Defendants have asserted that certain

5

additional documents are not in their possession, custody or control, this is not sufficient.

6

III.

Conclusion and Order

7

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum, filed on

8

June 19, 2014, is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 5, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3