Cowart v. Rahman et al

Filing 73

ORDER DISREGARDING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 69 Motion regarding receipt of Subpoenaed records, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 05/8/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GARDELL COWART,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

RAHMAN, et al.,

1:16-cv-00004-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REGARDING SUBPOEANED RECORDS
(Doc. 69)

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is a motion Plaintiff filed, on March 26,

19

2018, to obtain copies of subpoenaed medical records. (Doc. 69.)1 The history of this issue is

20

protracted, to say the least.
On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a subpoena to obtain medical records for treatment he

21
22

received relative to his claims in this action. (Doc. 43.) On October 3, 2017, an order issued

23

indicating that Plaintiff met the requirements for a subpoena to issue. (Doc. 44.) Defense counsel

24

was directed to file a statement indicating the steps taken to obtain the records sought by Plaintiff,

25

and to indicate whether counsel was willing to provide Plaintiff copies of any documents

26

obtained. (Id.) On October 12, 2017, defense counsel filed a statement indicating that records

27
28

1

Though titled as a “Motion for Default Judgment,” the entirety of Plaintiff’s two-page motion pertains to the
records from San Joaquin Community Hospital that he has not received. (See Doc. 69.)

1

1

from the facility where Plaintiff is currently housed had been recently received, which included

2

records from outside providers. (Doc. 45.) Defense counsel forwarded a copy of the records

3

received to Plaintiff that same week. (Id.) It, therefore, appeared that a subpoena was no longer

4

required and the order granting the subpoena was withdrawn. (Doc. 47.) Following receipt and

5

review of those records, Plaintiff was permitted to file a renewed subpoena request—if he

6

believed they were incomplete and was able to identify the missing records as well as their

7

relevance to this action. (Id.)
On November 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion indicating that the set of records provided

8
9

by defense counsel did not contain his complete records from outside facilities where Plaintiff

10

had received medical treatment and Plaintiff’s medical records from the California Department of

11

Rehabilitation and Corrections. (Doc. 48.) Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion indicated

12

that Plaintiff’s medical records from the facility where Plaintiff was incarcerated had been

13

subpoenaed, and should have also included all of the records from the outside providers. (Doc.

14

50.) Thus, separate subpoenas for records from the outside providers were not issued. (Id.)

15
16
17
18

Defendants indicated they would separately subpoena the records from the outside providers and
provide a copy to Plaintiff. (Id.) To accomplish this, Defendants requested extensions of the
discovery cut-off to January 13, 2017, and the dispositive motion deadline to March 12, 2018—
which was granted. (Doc. 59.)
In his current motion, Plaintiff contends Defendants did not subpoena records from the

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

correct facility: the records were subpoenaed from “Adventist Health” rather than from “San
Joaquin Community Hospital.” (Doc. 69.) In response, defense counsel pointed to a declaration
filed on February 27, 2018, (Doc. 60), in which she advised the Court and Plaintiff that the
facility’s name was changed in July of 2017 and it was now known as “Adventist Health.” (Doc.
71.) That declaration also advised that the custodian of records, where all subpoenas should be
served for Adventist Health, was located at a different address, where a subpoena was served.
(Id.) Defense counsel indicated counsel would provide copies of the subpoenaed records to
Plaintiff upon receipt. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a reply.
//
2

Plaintiff appears to have filed his motion without accounting for the declaration defense

1
2

counsel filed on February 27, 2018, (Doc. 60.) Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

3

Plaintiff’s motion, filed on March 26, 2018, (Doc. 69), regarding receipt of subpoenaed records is

4

DISREGARDED as moot.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:

May 8, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.