Williams v. Freeze et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/14/2014 DENYING, without prejudice, plaintiff's 37 motion for general authorization to attend depositions noticed by defendants; GRANTING plaintiff's 38 request to obtain four blank subpoenas duces tecum and the Clerk shall send plaintiff four blank subpoenas duces tecum with instructions; and plaintiff's 33 request for reconsideration remains pending before the district judge. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRES WILLIAMS,

12

No. 2:12-cv-2894 KJM KJN P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FREEZE, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action against defendants Boyd,

18

Swetland and Dernoncourt, on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. §

19

1983. Defendants Swetland and Boyd have answered the complaint. Defendant Dernoncourt

20

filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

21

as to Dernoncourt. The court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to the filing of a

22

motion for summary judgment on the same grounds, as required by Albino v. Baca, __ F.3d __,

23

2014 WL 1317141 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc). The period of time for filing the motion for

24

summary judgment has not yet expired. Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued

25

February 21, 2014, discovery closes on June 6, 2014, and dispositive motions are due on or

26

before August 29, 2014. (ECF No. 21.)

27

////

28

////
1

Currently pending before the undersigned1 are the following matters filed by plaintiff:

1
2

(1) Motion to be Present at Any Deposition of Any Witnesses Being Deposed by the Defendants

3

(ECF No. 37); and (2) Request for Blank Subpoena[s] to Command Production of Documents on

4

a Third Party (ECF No. 38).

5

Pursuant to his first motion, plaintiff seeks general authorization to attend any deposition

6

noticed by defendants; plaintiff identifies no specific deposition. Plaintiff states, alternatively,

7

that he “is willing to offer the alternative of being allowed to attend depositions by phone, or any

8

other method as the court deems fit.” (ECF No. 37 at 3.)

9

However, incarcerated parties do not have a constitutional right to attend depositions

10

noticed by opposing parties. More specifically, “an incarcerated plaintiff has no constitutional

11

right to attend the depositions taken in his civil action.” In re Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 911, 914 (6th

12

Cir. 1998) (citing In re Collins, 73 F.3d 614, 615 (6th Cir. 1995). As the court in Wilkinson

13

explained:

14

The reasoning supporting the rule was articulated by the Supreme
Court nearly a half century ago: “Lawful incarceration brings about
the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and
rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our
penal system. Among those so limited is the otherwise unqualified
right given by § 272 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 394 [now 28
U.S.C. § 1654] to parties in all courts of the United States to “plead
and manage their own causes personally.” Price v. Johnston, 334
U.S. 266, 285-86 (1948), overruled on other grounds by McCleskey
v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991). We often have employed the
Supreme Court's reasoning in the context of limits placed upon
prison inmates' participation in their own civil litigation. In fact, in
Holt v. Pitts, 619 F.2d 558 (6th Cir.1980), this court noted that
“[g]enerally speaking, prisoners who bring civil actions, including
prisoners who bring actions under the rights statute, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, have no right to be personally present at any stage of the
judicial proceedings.” See Holt, 619 F.2d at 560 (emphasis added).

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

In re Wilkinson, 137 F.3d at 914.

24

In Wilkinson, the Court of Appeals vacated the order of the district court authorizing the

25

inmate plaintiff’s attendance at a pretrial deposition noticed by defendants. The appellate court

26

identified the following factors to be considered:

27
28

1

Also pending, before the district judge, is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
undersigned’s order denying his request for appointment of counsel.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

In order to attend a pretrial deposition . . . , the inmate has the
burden of producing evidence that . . . his attendance at this
particular deposition is required. This includes a demonstration that
his physical presence will contribute significantly to a fair
adjudication of his claim. Furthermore, when determining whether
the prisoner has made a specialized showing of need, the court must
consider the interests of prison officials as well as the inmate. . . .
[T]he relevant factors a district court should weigh in exercising its
discretion in making this determination . . . include: “[T]he costs
and security risks involved in transporting the inmate to the
deposition site and in maintaining his presence at the deposition, the
importance of the testimony of the deponent to the claims alleged,
the need for the inmate to be physically present during the
deposition, the inmate's individual security history, general security
issues, and the availability of alternative means to accommodate the
concerns of both the inmate and the prison officials.” This
formulation allows the district court to consider both the interests of
the inmate in attending the deposition and of the prison system in
maintaining security and safety in the prison.

11

In re Wilkinson, 137 F.3d at 915-16 (quoting In re Collins, 73 F.3d at 615); accord, Smith v.

12

Adam, 2013 WL 1283478 at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

13

In the present case, plaintiff’s motion fails at the first step, because he has no particular

14

deposition in mind. Absent a specific request, the court is unable to consider the relevant factors.

15

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice.

16

Pursuant to his second request, plaintiff asks the court to send him four blank subpoenas,

17

with instructions, for the purpose of requesting the production of documents from third parties;

18

plaintiff identifies neither the third parties nor the documents requested. Although the court will

19

authorize plaintiff’s receipt of the requested blank subpoenas, to be completed by plaintiff, the

20

court will authorize service of the subpoenas by the United States Marshal only upon a showing

21

of good cause, as discussed forthwith.

22

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2), a subpoena duces tecum may direct

23

a non-party to an action to produce documents or other tangible objects for inspection. A

24

subpoena must be personally served or it is null and void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c); Gillam v. A.

25

Shyman, Inc., 22 F.R.D. 475 (D. Alaska 1958). Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma

26

pauperis, he is entitled to obtain personal service of an authorized subpoena duces tecum by the

27

United States Marshal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, this court must consider the following

28

limitations before directing the United States Marshal to personally serve a prisoner’s proposed
3

1

subpoena duces tecum.

2

A subpoena duces tecum is subject to the relevance standards set forth in Federal Rule of

3

Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) (“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that

4

is relevant to any party’s claim or defense”), and the considerations of burden and expense set

5

forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2) and 45(c)(1). The “Federal Rules of Civil

6

Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual

7

expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601,

8

605 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (requiring indigent plaintiff to demonstrate that he had “made provision for

9

the costs of such discovery”) (citing Cantaline v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 103 F.R.D. 447, 450

10

(S.D. Fla. 1984)); see also United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 666 F.2d 364

11

(9th Cir. 1982) (court may award costs of compliance with subpoena to non-party). Non-parties

12

are “entitled to have the benefit of this Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. Badman,

13

139 F.R.D. at 605. In addition, a motion authorizing service of a subpoena duces tecum must be

14

supported by: (1) clear identification of the documents sought and from whom, and (2) a showing

15

that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party. See e.g. Davis v. Ramen,

16

2010 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Williams v. Adams, 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal.

17

2010).

18

Subject to these considerations, the court will direct the United States Marshal to

19

personally serve of one or more of plaintiff’s completed subpoenas only upon proper application.

20

Specifically, plaintiff must submit the proposed subpoena(s), in tandem with a separate request

21

for service that demonstrates compliance with the above-noted requirements and, therefore, good

22

cause to obtain the assistance of the United States Marshal.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. Plaintiff’s motion for general authorization to attend depositions noticed by defendants

25

(ECF No. 37), is denied without prejudice.

26

2. Plaintiff’s request to obtain four blank subpoenas duces tecum (ECF No. 38), is

27

granted; the Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff four blank subpoenas duces tecum, which

28

include instructions for their completion.
4

1

3. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (ECF No. 33) of the undersigned’s order denying

2

his request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 30), remains pending before the district judge.

3

Dated: May 14, 2014

4

will2894.depo.sdt.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5