Williams v. Agredano, et al.

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/11/16 GRANTING 21 Motion to quash.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2: 15-cv-1767 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER

R. AGREDANO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

17
18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the motion to quash a subpoena by non-party

19

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff has

20

not opposed this motion. For the reasons stated herein, the motion to quash is granted.

21

CDCR states that on February 9, 2016, plaintiff served, by mail, a subpoena for the

22

production of documents to non-party CDCR. A copy of that subpoena is attached to the pending

23

motion. (Id. at 4-5.) CDCR moves to quash the subpoena on several grounds.
CDCR moves to quash the subpoena on grounds that it was not issued by a court clerk or

24
25

by an attorney licensed to practice in the issuing court, as required by Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 45(a)(3). Good cause appearing, the motion to quash is granted on grounds that it was

27

not issued by the court clerk or an attorney licensed to practice in this court.

28

////
1

1

CDCR also moves to quash the subpoena on grounds that it did not provide CDCR with a

2

reasonable time to comply with the request, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

45(d)(3)(A)(i). The subpoena required production of documents on the same day the subpoena

4

was served, i.e., February 9, 2016. Good cause appearing, the motion to quash is granted on

5

grounds that it did not provide CDCR with a reasonable time to comply with the request.

6

CDCR moves to quash the subpoena on several other grounds. The undersigned need not

7

reach these additional arguments because plaintiff’s subpoena is defective for the reasons

8

discussed above.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CDCR’s motion to quash (ECF No. 21) is

10

granted.

11

Dated: April 11, 2016

12
13
14
Will1767.sub
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2