Hoffmann v. Lassen Adult Detention Facitity, et al.

Filing 59

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/12/16 DENYING 56 Motion for issuance of subpoenas. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KASEY F. HOFFMAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2: 15-cv-1558 JAM KJN P v. ORDER LASSEN ADULT DETENTION FACLITY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s September 22, 2016 motion for 20 subpoenas. (ECF No. 56.) For the following reasons, this motion is denied. In the pending motion, plaintiff requests that the court issue subpoenas to several non- 21 22 parties for the production of various documents. A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces 23 tecum should be supported by clear identification of the documents sought and a showing that the 24 records are obtainable only through the identified third-party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, 2010 25 WL 1948560 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to 26 burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a 27 subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. PA. 1991). 28 //// 1 1 It appears that several of the documents requested in the pending motion are obtainable 2 from defendants Lassen County Jail Commander Jones and Lassen County Sheriff Growden. For 3 example, it seems likely that plaintiff could obtain his jail grievance file from defendants. For 4 these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoenas is denied. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for issuance of 6 subpoenas (ECF No. 56) is denied. 7 Dated: October 12, 2016 8 9 10 Hoff1558.sub(2) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?