Monson v. Unknown Floor Officers

Filing 13

ORDER Opening Limited Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/20/17. 120-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 TRENELL MONSON, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 Case No. 1:17-cv-00395-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER OPENING LIMITED DISCOVERY v. 120 DAY DEADLINE UNKNOWN FLOOR OFFICERS, Defendants. 10 11 Trenell Monson (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee being held at Fresno County Jail. He 12 is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14 10) against defendants Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 on Plaintiff’s claim for 15 failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 11 & 12). 16 As there are currently no defendants that have been identified in this case, the Court will 17 open limited discovery for the purpose of identifying and getting a service address for 18 defendants Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 (the Court recognizes that such 19 discovery may pose privacy issues, which may necessitate in camera review or sealing of 20 documents). 21 22 23 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Discovery is open for the limited purpose of identifying and getting a service address for defendants Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2; 24 2. If Plaintiff does not identify and provide a service address for defendants 25 Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 within 120 days from the date of 26 service of this order, the Court will issue findings and recommendations, 27 recommending that all defendants that Plaintiff has not yet identified and 28 provided a service address for be dismissed from this case, without prejudice, 1 for failure to serve;1 and 1 2 3. Discovery shall proceed as follows: 3 a. With the Court’s permission, Plaintiff may serve third party subpoenas, 4 including on the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office, if Plaintiff seeks 5 documents from entities that are not presently defendants in this case. 6 To issue a subpoena on this entity, or any other third parties, Plaintiff 7 must file a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum with the 8 Court. 9 subpoena duces tecum, commanding the production of documents from a 10 non-party, and may command service of the subpoena by the United 11 States Marshal Service. 12 However, the Court will consider granting such a request only if the 13 documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to 14 Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendant(s) through a request for 15 production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. In any request for a 16 subpoena, Plaintiff must: (1) identify with specificity the documents 17 sought and from whom; and (2) make a showing in the request that the 18 records are only obtainable through that third party; and If the Court approves the request, it may issue Plaintiff a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). 19 b. If any third party withholds a document on the basis of privilege, that 20 third party shall provide a privilege log to the requesting party 21 identifying the date, author, recipients, general subject matter, and basis 22 of the privilege within fourteen (14) days after the date that responses 23 are due. Failure to provide a privilege log within this time shall result in 24 a waiver of the privilege. To the extent the requesting party disputes 25 whether a document is privileged, it can raise that issue in a motion to 26 compel further discovery responses. If a third party withholds a 27 28 1 The Court notes that, upon motion by Plaintiff, this deadline can be extended for cause, including the need to file motions to compel further discovery responses. 2 1 document on the basis of the official information privilege, the 2 requesting party may request that the Court conduct an in camera review 3 of such document so that the Court can balance the moving party's need 4 for the document in the litigation against the reasons that are asserted in 5 defending its confidentiality. In any such request for in camera review, 6 the party requesting review shall identify, with specificity, the 7 document(s) for which review is sought. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 20, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?