Long v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al.
Filing
31
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONTEMPT SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/26/2021. (Show Cause Response due within 14-Day Deadline)(Copies of this order, Doc. 25, and Doc. 27 mailed to Matthew M. Grigg as Ordered)(Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PHILLIP J. LONG,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-0898-NONE-JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CONTEMPT SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
v.
JANE DOE,
Defendant.
16
17
This action proceeds against a single defendant, Jane Doe, on an Eighth Amendment
18
medical indifference claim. (Docs. 11, 12.) Jane Doe is a nurse with the company Corizon Health,
19
Inc., which contracts with the Fresno County Jail to provide medical services to the jail inmates.
20
Plaintiff has twice sought Jane Doe’s identity by serving a subpoena on Corizon Health. In response
21
to his first subpoena, counsel for Corizon Health responded that the subpoena was too vague. An
22
amended subpoena then issued on April 16, 2020, providing further details to assist in identifying
23
Jane Doe. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff has recently submitted a filing indicating that counsel for Corizon
24
Health has not responded to the amended subpoena despite having been personally served on June
25
18, 2020. (See Docs. 27, 29.)
26
27
A court may impose sanctions against a nonparty for failure to comply with a subpoena
for document production pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
28
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
45(g); Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 (9th Cir. 1983); McAllister v.
St. Louis Rams, LLC, 2018 WL 6164281, at *2 n.4 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2018) (“Rule 45 is the only
authority in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the imposition of sanctions against a
nonparty for failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum” (citing Pennwalt Corp., 708 F.2d at
494)). Under Rule 45, a court may exercise its contempt powers when a person who has been
served with a subpoena “fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to
it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). Contempt sanctions are among a court’s inherent powers. See Shillitani
v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); Ochoa v. Lopez, 2016 WL 9712071, at *1 (C.D. Cal.
June 20, 2016) (“A court has inherent power to enforce its orders by holding those who violate
those orders in civil contempt and issuing corresponding sanctions.” (citing Shillitani, 384 U.S. at
370)). In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Attorney Matthew M. Grigg shall show cause within fourteen days from the date of
this Order why contempt sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply
13
with the amended subpoena served on him on June 18, 2020; and
14
15
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to submit a copy of (a) this Order; (b) the April 16,
2020, Order Directing Issuance and Service of Amended Subpoena (Doc. 25); and (c)
16
the Certificate of Service (Doc. 27) on:
17
MATTHEW M. GRIGG
18
Law Offices of Matthew M. Grigg
19
1700 N. Broadway, Ste. 360
20
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated:
January 26, 2021
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
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?