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)

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