Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 175

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 168 Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas Duces Tecum signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/22/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

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

TASSEY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF
SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM
(Document 168)

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.
Pursuant to the July 17, 2014, Discovery and Scheduling Order, discovery closed on December
15, 2014.
On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for a subpoena duces tecum to Eddie
Hernandez, Litigation Coordinator at the Office of Correctional Safety for CDCR. In support of his

27
28
1

1

request, Plaintiff explains that he recently received Defendants’ supplemental responses to discovery. 1

2

Defendants withheld certain documents and produced a privilege log supported by Mr. Hernandez’s

3

declaration.

4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff’s motion explains why certain withheld documents are relevant and/or not
confidential, and he now seeks these and other documents directly from Mr. Hernandez. However, the
proper procedure to challenge a claim of privilege is through a motion to compel. Plaintiff cannot
circumvent Defendants’ objections by requesting the document from the individual supporting the
privilege.

9

Accordingly, his motion is DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

13

/s/ Dennis

February 22, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel on December 29, 2014. Discovery disputes
related to a motion to compel filed prior to the discovery deadline are not subject to the discovery cut-off date.

2