Muhammad v. Garrett

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum 8 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/24/2012. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAREEM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
CHAD GARRETT,
Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01199 - AWI - JLT
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM
(Doc. 8)

Kareem Muhammad (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action for

18

a violation of civil rights against defendant Chad Garrett, an officer of the Bakersfield Police

19

Department, in his individual capacity (“Defendant”). Plaintiff requests the Court issue a subpoena

20

duces tecum to Kern Medical Center to produce his medical records. (Doc. 8).

21

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, any party may serve a subpoena that commands a

22

non-party “to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things . . .” Fed. R.

23

Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C). Subpoenas are subject to the relevance requirements of Rule 26(b), and therefore

24

may command the production of documents which are “nonprivileged [and] . . . relevant to a party’s

25

claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

26

Because Plaintiff seeks copies of his own medical records, he may directly request that Kern

27

Medical Center provide copies of his medical records as well as a letter indicating that the records are

28

true and correct copies of the records. See Haines v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
1

1

139372, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2011). Therefore, Plaintiff should request these records directly from

2

Kern Medical Center.

3

Moreover, in this case, the Court has not issued summons and Defendant has not been served

4

with the Second Amended Complaint. Thus, the action has not been scheduled, and formal discovery

5

has not yet commenced. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is

6

premature.

7

8

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of
a subpoena duces tecum is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 24, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2