McCoy v. Kelso, et al.

Filing 138

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 136 & 137 Motions for Subpoenas, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/23/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
STRONACH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR SUBPOENAS
[ECF Nos. 136, 137]

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants

19

Stronach, Gonzales, LeMay, Beltran, Fisher, Snell and Tran were deliberately indifferent to his

20

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On May 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed two separate requests for subpoenas. In accordance with the

21
22

general practice in cases such as this, the request was filed as a motion.1
This case is currently in the discovery phase and the deadline for the completion of all

23
24

discovery is set for October 2, 2019. Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the

25

issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of documents, electronically stored information,

26
27
1

28

Because Plaintiff lacks entitlement to the subpoena duces tecum and there is no prejudice to Defendants, the Court elects
to resolve the motion without waiting for Defendants to file a response. Local Rule 230(l).

1

1

and/or tangible things from a nonparty, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to service of the subpoena by the

2

United States Marshal, 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a request

3

only if the documents or items sought from the nonparty are not equally available to Plaintiff and are

4

not obtainable from Defendants through a request for the production of documents, electronically

5

stored information, and/or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If Defendants object to Plaintiff’s

6

discovery request, a motion to compel is the next required step. If the Court rules that the documents,

7

electronically stored information, and/or tangible things are discoverable but Defendants do not have

8

care, custody, and control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(a)(1).

9

Alternatively, if the Court rules that the documents or items are not discoverable, the inquiry ends.

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
In this instance, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he sought the information from Defendants

11
12

through a request for the production of documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible

13

things, and, if he has done so, he has not filed a motion to compel the production of the information.

14

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum are HEREBY DENIED as

15

premature, without prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

19

May 23, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2