Smith v. Hernandez et al

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 27 Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum and GRANTING Defendants' 28 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Requests for Interrogatories, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/17/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DELBERT J. SMITH, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 C. HERNANDEZ, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-01267-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR INTERROGATORIES (ECF Nos. 27, 28) 16 Plaintiff Delbert J. Smith is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces 18 tecum, filed June 28, 2017, and Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s 19 interrogatories propounded to Defendants C. Hernandez and Zuniga, filed June 30, 2017. 20 I. 21 REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 22 Plaintiff seeks for the Court to sign and return a blank subpoena duces tecum. Subject to 23 certain requirements set forth herein, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding 24 the production of documents from non-parties, and to service of the subpoena by the United States 25 Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a 26 request only if the documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to Plaintiff and are 27 not obtainable from Defendants through a request for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If 28 Plaintiff wishes to make a request for the issuance of a records subpoena, he may file a motion 1 requesting the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum that (1) identifies with specificity the documents 2 sought and from whom, and (2) makes a showing in the motion that the records are only obtainable 3 through that third party. 4 In this instance, Plaintiff has not identified the documents which he is seeking, who he is 5 seeking documents from, or made a showing that the documents are only obtainable through that third 6 party. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena duces tecum is denied without prejudice. 7 II. 8 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 9 Defendants seek an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories propounded to 10 Defendants Hernandez and Zuniga. Defendants need the extension of time to review, edit, and obtain 11 verifications for the responses. The Court finds that good cause exists to grant Defendants’ request for 12 an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Accordingly, the Court shall grant 13 Defendants’ motion for an extension of time. 14 III. 15 ORDER 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum, filed June 28, 2017, is DENIED without prejudice; 18 2. 19 Defendants Hernandez and Zuniga’s motion for an extension of time to respond to 20 Plaintiff’s interrogatories, filed June 30, 2017, is GRANTED; and Defendants shall 21 serve their responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories on or before August 6, 2017. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 25 26 27 28 July 17, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?