Baldhosky v. Hubbard et al
Filing
95
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 75 Motion to Quash Subpoena, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 05/05/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
RAYMOND BALDHOSKY ,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN HUBBARD, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01200-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA
(ECF NO. 75)
Defendants.
15
16
17
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
18
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s
19
third amended complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims against ten
20
defendants: Dr. Gonzalez, Dr. Nguyen, Dr. Metts, Physician’s Assistant L. Peters,
21
Physician’s Assistant T. Byers, Nurse T. Grossi, Nurse Ruff, Nurse Dunn, Nurse
22
Indindes, and Nurse Amanda Kaylor. (ECF No. 31.)
23
Before the Court is a motion to quash subpoena by real party in interest California
24
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff filed a
25
response. (ECF Nos. 88, 89, 93.) CDCR filed a reply. (ECF No. 90.) The matter is
26
submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
27
28
1
1
I.
2
3
Procedural History
The subpoena at issue on this motion arises out of a lengthy and cumbersome
effort to serve the Defendants in this case.
4
Defendants Gonzalez, Metts, and Kaylor waived service early in this litigation.
5
Duc Nguyen was served on behalf of Defendant Nguyen, but service on Mr. Nguyen was
6
quashed. (ECF No. 60.) Summons for Defendants Indindes, Ruff, and Dunn were
7
returned unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 45, 46, 67.) Waivers sent to Defendants Byers, Grossi,
8
and Peters were not immediately returned and, for reasons that are presently unclear,
9
the United States Marshals Service (“USM”) did not attempt personal service on these
10
Defendants. (ECF No. 56.)
11
The Court held two status conferences to attempt to resolve service issues. (ECF
12
Nos. 64, 66.) In the latest of these, on January 12, 2017, counsel for Defendants
13
Gonzalez, Metts, and Kaylor represented the following: Defendants Byers, Grossi, and
14
Peters had received service packets and were expected to seek representation from the
15
Office of the Attorney General; address information for the correct Defendant Nguyen
16
had been given to USM; and CDCR was unwilling to provide information for Defendants
17
Indindes, Ruff, and Dunn absent a court order. (ECF No. 66.) Accordingly, on February
18
6, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s oral motion for subpoena duces tecum and issued a
19
subpoena directing CDCR to provide Plaintiff with certain documents regarding the
20
unserved Defendants to assist with service of process. (ECF No. 71.) Defendants Byers,
21
Grossi, and Peters since have appeared in the action and answered the complaint. (ECF
22
No. 85.)
23
II.
Discussion
24
CDCR contends that the subpoena is moot as to Defendants Byers, Grossi, and
25
Peters because they waived service and appeared in the action. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff
26
agrees, “as long as this request does not waive any rights Plaintiff may have of discovery
27
with CDCR and defendants.” (ECF No. 93.) As this subpoena was issued solely to obtain
28
2
1
information necessary to serve the Defendants, the Court agrees that the subpoena is
2
moot as to Byers, Grossi, and Peters. The subpoena will be quashed as to these
3
Defendants.
4
CDCR contends that the subpoena is moot as to Defendant Nguyen because
5
“[t]he name and address of the registry for whom Mr. Nguyen works were previously
6
provided to the U.S. Marshal for the purpose of effecting service of process .” (ECF No.
7
75.) However, the docket in this case reflects no appearance from Defendant Nguyen.
8
Representatives of USM have informed Court staff that waivers sent to the address
9
provided by CDCR were never returned. Additionally, the address is inappropriate for
10
personal service because it is a P.O. Box. In light of these circumstances, CDCR’s claim
11
that the subpoena is moot strains credulity. The motion to quash will be denied.
12
Nonetheless, CDCR asks that any confidential information associated with the
13
subpoenas not be divulged to Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that he has no desire for the
14
information, so long as the Defendants are served. Accordingly, in lieu of providing
15
documents to Plaintiff, the Court will permit CDCR to submit the following information
16
directly to the Court in camera: Defendant Nguyen’s full name, license number, registry
17
name, registry phone number, if any, and registry address, including a physical address,
18
if any. However, if Defendant Nguyen is not served or does not waive service within 60
19
days of the date of this order, the Court will order the information released to Plaintiff so
20
that he may conduct his own inquiries or seek further subpoenas to attempt to locate
21
Defendant Nguyen for service.
22
23
24
25
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. CDCR’s motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
as set forth herein;
2. Within five (5) days of the date of this order, CDCR shall provide the
26
following
information
to
27
mjsorders@caed.uscourts.gov: Defendant Nguyen’s full name, license
28
3
the
Court
in
camera
at
1
number, registry name, registry phone number, if any, and registry
2
address, including a physical address, if any.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 5, 2017
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?