Davis v. Paramo et al

Filing 118

ORDER Denying 111 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance With Subpoena as Moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 04/13/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 16CV689 WQH (JMA)

DOYLE WAYNE DAVIS, CDCR
#34318,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA AS
MOOT [ECF No. 111]

Defendants.
On December 27, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part
Plaintiff’s motion for an order to issue subpoenas duces tecum. (ECF No. 95.)
The Court directed the Clerk of Court to issue six (6) signed, but otherwise blank,
subpoena duces tecum forms and to send six (6) U.S. Marshal Forms 285 in
order to permit Plaintiff to subpoena medical records from the following medical
providers: (1) Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center; (2) Alvarado Medical Center
(“Alvarado”); (3) Tri-City Medical Center (“Tri-City”); (4) Oscar A. Matthews, M.D.
at Tri-City Medical Center (“Dr. Matthews”); (5) Mohammad Pashmforoush, M.D.
at Tri-City Medical Center and (6) Mohammad Pashmforoush, M.D. (collectively
“Dr. Pashmforoush”). (Id.) The Court ordered that although Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, was entitled to have the U.S. Marshal effect

1
16CV689 WQH (JMA)

1

service of the subpoenas (see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)), Plaintiff was not entitled to a

2

waiver of any fees or expenses required by the subpoena recipients to comply

3

with the subpoenas duces tecum. (Id.)

4

On March 7, 2018 nunc pro tunc March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to

5

compel compliance with subpoenas duces tecum, in which he advised that only

6

Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center had provided records in response to his

7

subpoenas. (ECF No. 111.) On March 12, 2018, the Court issued an order

8

setting a briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 112.) Nonparty Dr.

9

Pashmforoush filed a response to the motion. (ECF No. 113.) The other medical

10

providers (Alvarado, Tri-City, and Dr. Matthews) did not file responses. During a

11

Case Management Conference held on March 29, 2018, Plaintiff advised that he

12

had received records from Alvarado in response to his subpoena after filing his

13

motion to compel compliance.

14
15

The Court finds as follows:
1.

16

Mohammad Pashmforoush, M.D.
Dr. Pashmforoush produced records in response to Plaintiff’s subpoena

17

subsequent to the filing of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. See Pashmforoush

18

Resp., ECF No. 113 at 3; Arnold Decl., ECF No. 113-1, ¶ 4. Accordingly,

19

Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance as to Dr. Pashmforoush is DENIED as

20

moot. The Court declines to find Dr. Pashmforoush in contempt and declines to

21

issue any sanctions against him or his counsel.

22

2.

23

Tri-City Medical Center, and Oscar A. Matthews, M.D.
In considering the instant motion, it came to the Court’s attention that

24

although its March 12, 2018 briefing order was intended to be provided to Tri-

25

City, Dr. Matthews, and Alvarado, due to clerical error, it was not. As such, none

26

of these providers received the order and thus none filed a response to the

27

motion. It also came to the Court’s attention, while confirming the addresses

28

upon which to send a revised briefing order, that the addresses provided by
2
16CV689 WQH (JMA)

1

Plaintiff on his Form 285 forms as to Tri-City and Dr. Matthews, were incorrect.

2

Plaintiff’s subpoena issued to Tri-City was served upon Vicki Ogilvie with the Risk

3

Management Department, at 4002 Vista Way, Suite 301 in Oceanside, California,

4

the address provided by Plaintiff, rather than upon the correct location, the

5

Medical Records Department located at 4002 Vista Way in Oceanside,

6

California. Plaintiff also listed 4002 Vista Way, Suite 301 as the address upon

7

which to serve Dr. Matthews; service was instead effectuated at 2095 W. Vista

8

Way in Vista, California. (ECF No. 106.) It is incumbent upon the party serving a

9

subpoena to complete the subpoena correctly before service. See Fed. R. Civ.

10

P. 45(a)(3); Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (providing that

11

the plaintiff must provide the necessary information to effectuate service when

12

relying on the Marshal for service).

13

Notwithstanding that Plaintiff did not provide the correct address upon

14

which to serve the custodian of records at Tri-City, the Court was informed by Tri-

15

City’s General Counsel, on behalf of its Medical Records Department, that

16

Plaintiff’s subpoena had been located and that medical records responsive to

17

Plaintiff’s subpoena will be provided forthwith. Tri-City also informed that records

18

relating to Plaintiff’s treatment with Dr. Matthews would be included in its

19

production.

20

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance as to Tri-City and Dr.

21

Matthews is DENIED as moot.

22

3.

Alvarado Medical Center

23

Plaintiff has advised that Alvarado has produced records in response to the

24

subpoena. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance as to Alvarado is

25

DENIED as moot.

26

4.

27
28

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with

subpoena is DENIED as moot.
3
16CV689 WQH (JMA)

1

Plaintiff is reminded that, as discussed during the Case Management

2

Conference held on March 29, 2018, copies of any documents he receives via

3

subpoena must be provided to Defendants.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2018

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

cc:
Jennifer Arnold
Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 85266
San Diego, CA 92186-5266
[e-mail]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16CV689 WQH (JMA)