Baker v. Cacoa et al

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum 30 ; ORDER and NOTICE Authorizing Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum, and DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Serve Copy of Subpoena With Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/5/17: 10-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MIKE BAKER,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

S. CACOA, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00693-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
(ECF No. 30)
ORDER AND NOTICE AUTHORIZING
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM,
AND DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO SERVE
COPY OF SUBPOENA WITH ORDER

Plaintiff Mike Baker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17
18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

I.

Relevant Background

21

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a status report and motion for early discovery, to attempt to

22

discover the identity of LVN Jane Doe. (ECF No. 21.) On April 20, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

23

motion for early discovery on the grounds that the case was at the screening stage, and the claims upon

24

which the action proceeds upon should be finalized before discovery commenced.

25

On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of his intent to proceed only on the claims that the

26

Court had found to be cognizable following screening, including certain claims against LVN Jane

27

Doe. (ECF No. 22.) Accordingly, on May 31, 2017, the Court issued an order regarding Plaintiff’s

28

duty to identify LVN Jane Doe for service. The Court provided Plaintiff the legal standards applicable
1

1

to the issuance of subpoenas pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was

2

further permitted forty-five (45) days from the issuance of this order to either file a motion to

3

substitute the identity of LVN Jane Doe in this action, or to file any request for a Rule 45 subpoena to

4

obtain the information necessary to identify LVN Jane Doe.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to issue a Rule 45 subpoena, filed

5
6

on July 17, 2017. (ECF No. 30.)

7

II.

Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum
Plaintiff’s Attempts to Identify LVN Jane Doe

8

A.

9

In Plaintiff’s January 3, 2017 status report signed under penalty of perjury, Plaintiff declared

10

that he initially attempted to discover the identity of LVN Jane Doe by requesting his medical records,

11

and sending requests for information to a health records supervisor and a registered nurse who

12

supervised LVN Jane Doe.

13

In the currently motion, also supported by a declaration, Plaintiff declares that he did not

14

receive a response from his correspondence to the health records supervisor or registered nurse.

15

However, Plaintiff received copies of relevant medical records for his review. Only one document had

16

LVN Jane Doe’s name on it. This document, the Medication Administration Record (“MAR”) shows

17

each nurse who passed medication out for the month of May 2014, and LVN Jane Doe’s name and

18

initials were to be printed on the MAR. Although the relevant MAR shows LVN Jane Doe issued

19

Plaintiff’s medication, according to Plaintiff the LVN’s handwriting is indecipherable. The MAR was

20

not provided for the Court’s review, but the Court accepts Plaintiff’s representation.

21

Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has adequately attempted to find

22

information to identify LVN Jane Doe using the information that is available to him. The Court turns

23

to Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena request.

24

B.

Issuance of Subpoena

25

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits issuance of subpoenas to obtain

26

discovery from non-parties equivalent to discovery from parties under Rule 34. See Adv. Comm. Note

27

to 1991 Amendment to FRCP 45. Rule 34 governs discovery of designated documents, electronically

28

stored information, and designated tangible things subject to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil
2

1

Procedure 26(b). Meeks v. Parsons, No. 1:03-cv-6700-LJO-GSA, 2009 WL 3003718, at *2 (E.D. Cal.

2

Sept. 18, 2009) (citing Fahey v. United States, 18 F. R. D. 231, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)).

3

Rule 26(b)(1) establishes the scope of discovery, stating in pertinent part:

4

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’
relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need
not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

5
6
7
8
9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). These standards mean that the Court may grant a request by Plaintiff to issue a

10

Rule 45 subpoena to a properly identified non-party to discover information that is relevant to the

11

party’s claims or defenses, is not burdensome, is not within Plaintiff’s reasonable access, upon a

12

sufficient showing of the importance of the information.

13

Here, Plaintiff declares that the pages of the 4B4R housing log book for second watch on May

14

7, 2014 and May 8, 2014, where he was housed at the time of the events at issue, contains information

15

necessary and sufficient to identify LVN Jane Doe. Plaintiff declares that LVN Jane Doe was required

16

to identify herself in the log, and that by referencing the dates and times with the MAR, he will be able

17

to identify her. Plaintiff further declares that the Warden of California State Prison, Corcoran has

18

possession, custody or control over the relevant log books.
Based upon Plaintiffs’ representations and the record at this time, the Court finds that it is in

19
20

the interest of justice to authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum commanding the Warden of

21

Corcoran State Prison to produce the documents identified by Plaintiff, if any exist.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(4), this order serves as notice to the parties

22
23

that the United States Marshal will be directed to initiate service of the subpoena in ten (10) days from

24

the date of service of this order.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

III.

Conclusion and Order

2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

30);

4
5

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to issue a Rule 45 subpoena duces tecum (ECF No.

2.

The Clerk of the Court shall prepare the subpoena duces tecum directing the Warden of

6

California State Prison, Corcoran, to produce the pages of the 4B4R housing log book

7

for second watch on May 7, 2014 and May 8, 2014;

8

3.

and,

9
10

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the subpoena on the parties with this order;

4.

Pursuant to Rule 45(a)(4), the parties are placed on notice that the United States

11

Marshal will be directed to initiate service of the subpoena subpoena duces tecum

12

described above in ten (10) days from the date of service of this order.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 5, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4