Handy v. Diggins et al

Filing 181

MINUTE ORDER granting 179 Motion for Subpoena. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff one signed subpoena, featuring the caption of this case, but otherwise blank by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 06/06/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 10–cv–02022–WYD–KMT

WYATT T. HANDY JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHIEF DIGGINS, individual & official capacity,
MAJOR V. CONNORS, individual & official capacity,
CHAPLAIN SCOTT, individual & official capacity,
MR. BURRIS, individual & official capacity, and
PANEL OF ISLAMIC CLERICS, individual & official capacity
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Subpoena” (Doc. No. 179, filed June 5, 2012) is GRANTED. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3), Plaintiff requests a subpoena from the Clerk of Court, signed but
otherwise blank. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 179) is GRANTED. Rule 45(a)(3) provides that
the Clerk of Court “must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise, in blank, to a party who
requests it.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff
one signed subpoena, featuring the caption of this case, but otherwise blank.
Dated: June 6, 2012

1

Although it grants Plaintiff’s Motion, the court finds it prudent to advise Plaintiff that
the June 5, 2012 discovery deadline has now expired. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff
seeks to use this subpoena to seek documents from a third-party under Rule 45(a)(1), it may well
be quashed because service will necessarily occur outside of the discovery deadline. See Murray
v. Crawford, 08-cv-02045-KMT-KLM, 2009 WL 16000682, at *1-2 (D. Colo. June 4, 2009)
(citing cases from other jurisdictions for the proposition that a Rule 45 subpoena does in fact
constitute discovery and is therefore subject the scheduling order’s general discovery deadlines).