Khouanmany v. United States Marshals et al

Filing 99

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/13/19 DISREGARDING 98 plaintiff's request for production of documents and DENYING 98 request for subpoena duces tecum. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-1326-TLN-EFB P

ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with claims arising under Bivens v. Six

17
18

Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). She has filed a document entitled “Request for

19

Production of Documents” and “Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum.” ECF No. 98. Plaintiff

20

must, however, serve her requests for production on defense counsel rather than filing them with

21

the court.1 See E.D. Cal. Local Rules 250.2-250.4. And before the court will order the U.S.

22

Marshal to serve a subpoena duces tecum, plaintiff must first demonstrate that the requested

23

documents are not equally available to her and not obtainable from the defendant through a

24

properly served request for production.

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

1

Pursuant to the court’s discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 96), written requests
for discovery must be served no later than September 27, 2019.
1

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Request for Production of

2

Documents” is disregarded and her “Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum” (ECF No. 98) is

3

denied without prejudice.

4

DATED: August 13, 2019.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2