McDonald v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying 63 Motion for Issuance and Service of Subpoenas in Forma Pauperis: With Request for Reconsideration. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/16/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02749-MSK-MEH
R. KIRK MCDONALD,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.,
CITIBANK, N.A.,
CHASE FUNDING MORTGAGE LOAN, and
ASET BACKED CERTIFICATES 2002-4,
Defendants.

ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s Order Dated May 7, 2013 Motion for Issuance and
Service of Subpoenas in Forma Pauperis: With Request for Reconsideration [filed May 13, 2013;
docket #63] is denied without prejudice for the following reasons.
As noted in the Court’s May 2, 2013 Order, Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant proceeding
in forma pauperis does not entitle him obtain documents free of charge. See Windsor v. Martindale,
175 F.R.D. 665, 672 (D. Colo. 1997) (“Plaintiff is not entitled to a copy of any document without
payment of an appropriate copy cost, if required.”) The Court explained that plaintiffs in this district
have been required to “provide[] proof that [they] have made arrangements for the payment of costs
associated with the preparation or copying of those documents, or obtained agreement of the third
party to waive the payment of those costs.” Hawkinson v. Montoya, 04-cv-01271-EWN-BNB, 2006
WL 1215397, at *2 (D. Colo. May 4, 2006) (citing Windsor, supra); see also Milligan v. Reed, 06cv-00911-WYD-MJM, 2009 WL 1636957, at *1 (D. Colo. June 11, 2009). In light of the costs

associated with directing the issuance and service of the six subpoenas attached to Plaintiff’s motion,
the Court declined to enter any such orders until Plaintiff demonstrated his ability to pay for the
requested documents, or provided evidence that payment would not be necessary.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff proffers, without any authority or evidence, that
all documents he seeks to obtain can be produced in electronic format, and therefore, without cost.
Even if this assertion were true, there are undoubtedly administrative costs associated with the
preparation of the documents. Thus, the Court reiterates that it will not direct the Clerk of the Court
to issue or arrange service of the six proposed subpoenas until Plaintiff provides proof that he has
made arrangements for the payment of costs associated with the preparation or copying of those
documents, or obtained agreement of the third party to waive the payment of those costs. See
Hawkinson, 2006 WL 1215397 at *2.
Dated and entered at Denver, Colorado, this 16th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

2