De Tagle v. Santa Clara County, San Jose Police Department
Filing
16
ORDER granting 14 Ex Parte Application to Serve A Third Party Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 2/5/2024. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
AUSTIN DE TAGLE,
8
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 23-cv-05095-VKD
11
SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICER JULIAN
#4610,
12
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO SERVE A THIRDPARTY SUBPOENA
Re: Dkt. No. 14
13
Plaintiff Austin de Tagle, who is representing himself, asks permission to serve a third-
14
15
party subpoena on the City of San Jose prior to the Rule 26(f) conference in order to obtain contact
16
information for defendant San Jose Police Officer Julian, #4610 (“Officer Julian”). Dkt. No. 14.
17
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the application.
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Office Julian is the sole defendant named in Mr. de Tagle’s first amended complaint
20
(“FAC”) in this civil rights action. See Dkt. No. 6. The Court has previously issued orders
21
granting Mr. de Tagle’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, screening the FAC pursuant to
22
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the FAC on Officer Julian. Dkt. Nos.
23
5, 7. The Marshal attempted to serve Officer Julian at the San Jose Police Department but was
24
unable to effect service because “Officer Julian #4610 resigned from SJPD in April of 2023.”
25
Dkt. No. 9. Noting that “[a]s a general matter, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to determine
26
the defendant’s whereabouts in order to effect service,” the Court directed Mr. de Tagle to provide
27
updated contact information to allow the Marshal to effect service on Officer Julian. Dkt. No. 10.
28
In his ex parte application, Mr. de Tagle explains that he has made several attempts to
1
obtain contact information for Officer Julian from the City, but his efforts have been unsuccessful.
2
See Dkt. No. 14 (application), Dkt. No. 15 (declaration in support). Mr. de Tagle specifically
3
alleges that the City’s Human Resources department refused to release Officer Julian’s contact
4
information due to “privacy issues.” Dkt. No 15 at 2. He asks the Court to allow him to serve a
5
third-party subpoena on the City seeking Officer Julian’s “full name, current address, last known
6
contact information, [and] email address.” Dkt. No. 14 at 2.
7
II.
While the general rule is that “discovery proceedings take place only after the defendant
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
DISCUSSION
9
has been served,” the rule is subject to certain exceptions, such as “permitting limited discovery to
10
ensue after filing of the complaint to permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary to
11
permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D.
12
Cal. 1999). In the context of proceedings against “John Doe” defendants, the Ninth Circuit has
13
stated that “where the identity of the alleged defendant is not known prior to the filing of a
14
complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown
15
defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint
16
would be dismissed on other grounds.” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir.
17
1999) (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also Gillespie v.
18
Torres, No. 20-CV-03735-DMR, 2020 WL 6710090, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020); Anaya v.
19
Marin Cnty. Sheriff, No. 13-CV-04090-WHO, 2014 WL 6660415, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24,
20
2014).
21
It appears that the San Jose Police Department has at least some information concerning
22
Officer Julian’s full name and contact information, and that discovery of that information would
23
likely enable Mr. de Tagle to serve the FAC on Officer Julian. See Dkt. No. 9. As the Court
24
concluded in its screening order, the FAC states a plausible Fourth Amendment false arrest claim
25
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Dkt. No. 7. Thus, Mr. de
26
Tagle is entitled to obtain the defendant’s contact information in order to effect service.
27
The Court is sensitive to the City’s concerns about the privacy of its employees.
28
Accordingly, it grants Mr. de Tagle’s application and orders as follows:
2
1.
1
2
City to produce documents sufficient to show Officer Julian’s full name and last known residential
3
address and phone number, using the U.S. Courts AO 88B document subpoena form, a copy of
4
which is attached to this order.1 Mr. de Tagle shall file the completed subpoena on the Court’s
5
docket by February 19, 2024.
2.
6
Once Mr. de Tagle files an appropriate, completed subpoena, the Court will direct
7
the U.S. Marshal to serve it on the City of San Jose, together with a copy of this order. See Fed.
8
R. Civ. P. 45(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
3.
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Mr. de Tagle shall prepare a subpoena directed to the City of San Jose asking the
Instead of producing responsive documents to the subpoena to Mr. de Tagle, the
10
City may file the responsive documents with the Court ex parte and under seal, and may seek a
11
protective order providing that the information shall be used solely by the Marshal to effect
12
service on Officer Julian.
4.
13
14
service of the FAC on Officer Julian to March 18, 2024. See Dkt. No. 13; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
The Court finds good cause to extend the February 16, 2024 deadline to effect
Dated: February 5, 2024
17
18
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fillable PDF and Microsoft Word versions of this form are available on the Court’s website at:
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/.
3
1
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?