Williams v. Ortega et al

Filing 76

ORDER Denying 70 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs request to issue the subpoena he sent to the Court in July for the same reasons outlined in the Courts prior order. Except for certain discovery ordered to be provided by Defendants no later than September 24, 2020, discovery is now closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 09/17/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mme)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Case No.: 18-cv-0547-LAB-MDD
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

O. ORTEGA, et al.,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 70]

Plaintiff Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, moves to compel Defendants O. Ortega, R. Valencia,
S. Bustos, F. Lewis, A. Bowman, and M. Kimani (collectively, “Defendants”)
to respond to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set four. (ECF
No. 70). Plaintiff did not attach his discovery requests to his motion, but
indicates it is the same information requested in a “subpoena received by the
court dated July 17, 2020.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff contends that the subpoena
was mailed to Defendants well before the discovery deadline and that the
requests for production of documents, set four, were sent with the instant
motion on September 1, 2020. (Id.). Plaintiff further moves the Court to
issue the subpoena he sent to the Court on July 17, 2020 if the Court denies
his motion to compel. (Id. at 2).
1

18-cv-0547-LAB-MDD

1

In the subpoena sent to the Court in July, Plaintiff requested the “full

2

names of all D.D.P. employees working under Dr. Zudiker that visit A-Yards

3

E.O.P. buildings for check of D.D.P. inmates on usually Tuesdays between

4

the dates of June 1st, 2018 and Jan. 1, 2019 mainly the women employees

5

who visited.” (ECF No. 57 at 2). The subpoena recipient is listed as “Richard

6

J. Donovan Litigation Department Attn: C.C. II Connie.” (Id.). The intended

7

recipient is not a party to this case. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to

8

issue and serve the requested subpoena on August 6, 2020, because Plaintiff

9

failed to demonstrate that the information requested was not available

10
11

through ordinary discovery from Defendants. (ECF No. 59).
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion to compel, arguing that the

12

request for production of documents was served untimely, the motion itself is

13

objectionable because Plaintiff did not attach the discovery request, and that

14

they did not know Plaintiff was seeking this information from them because

15

the subpoena recipient is a third party. (ECF No. 75).

16

Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, “[a]ll discovery . . . shall be

17

completed by all parties on or before September 7, 2020,” meaning that

18

“requests for production . . . must be sent at least thirty (30) days prior to the

19

established cutoff date so that responses thereto will be due on or before the

20

cutoff date.” (ECF No. 44 at 2). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for

21

production of document, set four, which were sent to Defendants on

22

September 1, 2020 are untimely. Plaintiff has not explained why he waited

23

until September 1, 2020 to serve his request for production of documents

24

despite receiving the Court’s Order dated August 6, 2020, suggesting that he

25

attempt to obtain the requested documents from Defendants, rather than the

26

third party. Defendants were not obligated to respond to requests contained

27

in an unserved subpoena to a third party. In an abundance of caution, the
2

18-cv-0547-LAB-MDD

1

Court reviewed the discovery request and the relevance of the requested

2

information to any of Plaintiff’s claims is not obvious.

3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as untimely. The

4

Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request to issue the subpoena he sent to the

5

Court in July for the same reasons outlined in the Court’s prior order. (See

6

ECF No. 59). Except for certain discovery ordered to be provided by

7

Defendants no later than September 24, 2020, discovery is now closed. (See

8

ECF No. 72).

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: September 17, 2020

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3

18-cv-0547-LAB-MDD