Smith v. Hernandez et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DELBERT J. SMITH,
C. HERNANDEZ, et al.,
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
(ECF Nos. 27, 28)
Plaintiff Delbert J. Smith is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces
tecum, filed June 28, 2017, and Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories propounded to Defendants C. Hernandez and Zuniga, filed June 30, 2017.
REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Plaintiff seeks for the Court to sign and return a blank subpoena duces tecum. Subject to
certain requirements set forth herein, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding
the production of documents from non-parties, and to service of the subpoena by the United States
Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a
request only if the documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to Plaintiff and are
not obtainable from Defendants through a request for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If
Plaintiff wishes to make a request for the issuance of a records subpoena, he may file a motion
requesting the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum that (1) identifies with specificity the documents
sought and from whom, and (2) makes a showing in the motion that the records are only obtainable
through that third party.
In this instance, Plaintiff has not identified the documents which he is seeking, who he is
seeking documents from, or made a showing that the documents are only obtainable through that third
party. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena duces tecum is denied without prejudice.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Defendants seek an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories propounded to
Defendants Hernandez and Zuniga. Defendants need the extension of time to review, edit, and obtain
verifications for the responses. The Court finds that good cause exists to grant Defendants’ request for
an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Accordingly, the Court shall grant
Defendants’ motion for an extension of time.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum, filed June 28, 2017, is DENIED without
Defendants Hernandez and Zuniga’s motion for an extension of time to respond to
Plaintiff’s interrogatories, filed June 30, 2017, is GRANTED; and Defendants shall
serve their responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories on or before August 6, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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?