Klein v. Conanan

Filing 44

ORDER Denying Motion, Without Prejudice (Doc. 43 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/10/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL KLEIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-00600-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(Doc. 43.)

DR. CONANAN,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Michael Klein (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the original

22

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on April 25, 2013, against defendant Dr. Conanan for failure to

23

provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)

24

On October 8, 2014, the court issued a Scheduling Order setting out pretrial deadlines in

25

this action, including a deadline of June 8, 2015, for the completion of discovery, including the

26

filing of motions to compel. (Doc. 28.) Thus, this case is now in the discovery phase.

27
28

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order
issued on January 29, 2015. (Doc. 43.)
1

1

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

2

Plaintiff brings a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying Plaintiff’s

3

request for the issuance of subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses at trial. However,

4

Plaintiff indicates in the motion that he now seeks the issuance of “10 certified subpoenas

5

dueces (sic) tecum so I can compel prison officials to produce documents and other tangible

6

items.” (Motion, Doc. 43 at 1.) Based on this language, the court construes Plaintiff’s motion

7

for reconsideration as a motion for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum. For the reasons set

8

forth below, Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion.

9

Subject to certain requirements set forth herein, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of

10

subpoenas commanding the production of documents from non-parties, and to service of the

11

subpoenas by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the

12

Court will consider granting such a request only if the documents sought from the non-parties

13

are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a request

14

for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Plaintiff has not described the documents he

15

seeks. Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether any of the documents sought by Plaintiff

16

may be available to Plaintiff through a request for production of documents to Defendants.

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he made a request to Defendants for

18

production of these documents, nor has Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to

19

produce the requested documents.

20

Should Plaintiff choose to file another motion for the issuance of subpoenas duces

21

tecum, Plaintiff must (1) identify with specificity the documents sought and from whom, and

22

(2) make a showing in the request that the records are only obtainable through that third party.

23

Also, documents requested must fall within the scope of discovery allowed in this action.1

24
25
26
27
28

1

Under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, A[u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the
scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense C including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of
any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable
matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion filed

3

on February 9, 2015 is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal of the motion as instructed by

4

this order.

5
6
7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 10, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3