Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 138

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Responses From Delorise P. Tassey (Document 120 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/25/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GIPSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
FROM DELORISE P. TASSEY
(Document 120)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to
the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims,
this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
Discovery closed on December 15, 2014, though motions to compel are pending.
On November 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel non-party Delorise P. Tassey to
respond to Requests for Production of Documents. He also requested the imposition of sanctions.
Defendants did not file an opposition and the Court deems the matter suitable for decision
pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

28
1

1

DISCUSSION

2

According to Plaintiff’s motion and exhibit, he served Requests for Production of Documents

3

on non-party Delorise P. Tassey on October 26, 2014.1 Plaintiff contends that Ms. Tassey is in

4

possession of relevant information. In response, Plaintiff states that Defendants’ counsel told him to

5

prepare a subpoena.

6
7
8
9

Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 provides that “[a] party may serve on any other
party” requests for production of documents. In other words, requests for production of documents, as
well as other forms of discovery, are limited to the parties in an action. Here, Ms. Tassey is not a
party and Plaintiff cannot serve her with discovery under Rule 34. The Court therefore cannot compel

10

her to provide a response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

11

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is therefore DENIED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

/s/ Dennis

December 25, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

This appears to be the second time Plaintiff has served these Requests for Production on Ms. Tassey. The first request is
the subject of a separate motion.

2