Hash v. Rallos et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/22/2022 DENYING without prejudice 57 motion for service of subpoenas. Plaintiff's requests for production to defendant Brida (ECF No. 57 at 6-10) are limited as set forth in order.(Perdue, C.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-1721 TLN AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

T. RALLOS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
By order filed March 18, 2022, the undersigned opened discovery for the limited purpose

20

of allowing plaintiff to identify defendant Johnson and the representative of defendant Farinas’

21

estate. ECF No. 55. Plaintiff was permitted to serve discovery requests or make a request to the

22

court for the service of subpoenas and discovery was limited to obtaining information necessary

23

for the service of those defendants. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff has now filed a motion requesting that the

24

court serve subpoenas on the Office of Stakeholder Relations for the California Public

25

Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the litigation coordinator at California State

26

Prison, Solano. ECF No. 57. In the motion plaintiff states that he has also sent requests for

27

discovery to attempt to obtain the information without having to subpoena third-parties, but that

28

he expects defendants will object to the requests. Id. at 1-2.
1

1

In light of plaintiff’s attempts to obtain the information through discovery directed to

2

defendants, the request for service of subpoenas will be denied at this time. In the event plaintiff

3

is unable to obtain the information he seeks through discovery, including through any necessary

4

motions to compel, he will be given an opportunity to request subpoenas at that time. However,

5

the court notes that plaintiff’s requests for discovery, which are attached to the motion to serve

6

subpoenas, exceeds the scope of permitted discovery, and will therefore be limited as set forth in

7

this order. Defendant Brida need only respond, including raising any objections, to

8

Interrogatories No. 3 and 5 and Requests for Production 2 and 5. Defendant shall also respond to

9

Request for Production No. 3, subject to any objections, by producing either appropriately

10

redacted payroll logs or some other documentation, such as a staffing roster, that provides

11

comparable information regarding the identify of any correctional officers named Johnson.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the service of subpoenas (ECF No. 57) is DENIED without

14
15

prejudice.
2. Plaintiff’s requests for production to defendant Brida (ECF No. 57 at 6-10) are limited

16

as set forth above.

17

DATED: April 22, 2022

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2