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)

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