Edwards v. Clark et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 41, 45] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoenas [ECF No. 46] is held in abeyance. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Directed to Plaintiff [ECF No. 44] is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on November 23, 2016. (MCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
LT. CLARK, et al.,
Case No. 4:16CV00331 ERW
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel [ECF No.
41, 45], Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoenas [ECF No. 46], and Defendants’ Motion to Compel
Directed to Plaintiff [ECF No. 44].
Motions to Appoint Counsel
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this matter and is of the opinion the appointment
of counsel should be denied. Plaintiff has not shown he made diligent efforts to obtain legal
counsel, nor has he shown legal counsel is necessary. Plaintiff is granted leave to refile a motion
at a later date.
Motion for Subpoenas
Plaintiff seeks subpoenas for medical records from SSM Health, and testimony from the
following individuals: Dr. Andrew Krieger, Dr. Nicholas Watson, an unnamed St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Officer, an unnamed paramedic from the St. Louis Fire Department, and
Linda Word, RN.
The Court has discretion to grant or deny subpoenas for indigent parties at the expense of
the Government. Williams v. Carter, 10 F.3d 563, 566 (8th Cir. 1993). “This power should be
exercised to protect the resources of the Court and the Marshals Service, and to prevent
harassment and undue expense of other parties and non-parties.” Fernandez v. North Dakota,
No. 1:12-CV-00161, 2013 WL 6710636 at *1 (D. N.D. Dec. 18, 2013) (citing Stockdale v.
Stockdale, 4:08-CV-1773 CAS, 2009 WL 4030758 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 18, 2009)).Courts generally
“consider factors such as the relevance and materiality of the information requested and the
necessity of the particular testimony or documents to proving the indigent’s case.” Stockdale,
2009 WL 4030758 at *1. The Court may deny a request for a subpoena if it is frivolous,
immaterial or unnecessary, unduly burdensome, would result in costs the indigent cannot
provide, or is otherwise unreasonable. Id.
The Clerk of the Court will be directed to send Plaintiff six blank subpoena forms.
Plaintiff may fill out the forms and return them to this Court for service on non-parties located in
this district, or to another federal district as appropriate. Plaintiff should not sign the subpoenas,
which may be signed by the Clerk after they are returned to the Court. Plaintiff’s current motion
for subpoenas does not contain sufficient information for the Court to determine whether the
subpoenas are relevant, necessary, and not unduly burdensome. Therefore, Plaintiff is directed to
submit a memorandum with the filled out subpoenas which explains for each subpoena (1) why
the documents he seeks are relevant to his case, (2) why he believes the entity or individual
subpoenaed has relevant documents or testimony, and (3) how he will provide the necessary
costs, if any, related to the productions. The Court will review Plaintiff’s memorandum and will
then determine which subpoenas, if any, should be signed by the Clerk of the Court and issued.
Plaintiff is cautioned he must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Directed to Plaintiff
Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to Defendants initial disclosures
including a list of persons having knowledge or information of the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s
claim, including addresses, and all documents Plaintiff believes mention, relate to, or in any way
support his claim.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (a)(1)(A), a party is required to provide to
other parties certain initial disclosures include the names and addresses of any individuals likely
to have discoverable information and any documents the party has to support his claim. Plaintiff
is ordered to provide the information requested by Defendants, to Defendants, within thirty days
of this order. The Court will permit the parties to amend the Case Management Order to extend
deadlines due to the Court’s decisions in this order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 41,
45] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoenas [ECF No. 46] is
held in abeyance.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Directed to Plaintiff
[ECF No. 44] is GRANTED.
So Ordered this 23rd day of November, 2016.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?