Johnson et al v. Oregon Department of Human Services et al

Filing 39

ORDER regarding Request and Notice of Change of Address 38 . Plaintiff's request for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum 38 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 7/31/17 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARIO LEE JOHNSON,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00620-SB

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
JENNIFER SPIVEY; MOLLY STRONG,
Defendants.

BECKERMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Mario Johnson (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, has requested the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum (ECF 38). Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a subpoena
directed to Jesse B. Davis, counsel for Defendants Jennifer Spivey and Molly Strong,
commanding the production of “all records (electronic and hard copies), all court transcripts and
other tangible information relating to the C.P.S. case and juvenile dependency case re: minor
child [W.M.], [A.M.], and [M.J.]”
Under FED. R. CIV. P. 34(c) and FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(D), the parties to a case in this
court may obtain discovery from non-parties through a subpoena compelling the production of
PAGE 1 – ORDER

documents and tangible things, or permitting an inspection. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(D) does not,
however, apply to discovery sought from a party. See Wirtz v. Local Union 169, Intern. Hod
Carriers’ Bldg. and Common Laborers’ Union of America, AFL-CIO, 37 F.R.D. 349, 351 (D.
Nev. 1965) (subpoena duces tecum is not intended as substitute for request to produce where
subpoena requires production of documents under control of party as distinguished from
independent witness). Here, Plaintiff has other options for seeking discovery from Defendants.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 26-36.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum (ECF No.
38) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of July, 2017.

STACIE F. BECKERMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER