Harris v. Anderson et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying plaintiff's 8 Motion to Direct Issuance of Subpoena for a Copy of the Judge's Order Placing Me on Phone Deadlock, signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

MARIO LAMONT HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

CASE NO. C18-0861-RSM-MAT

v.
ORDER RE: PENDING MOTION
KING COUNTY POLICY, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights matter pursuant to 42

15

U.S.C. § 1983. He recently filed a Motion to Direct Issuance of Subpoena for a Copy of the

16

Judge’s Order Placing Me on Phone Deadlock. (Dkt. 8.) Having considered that motion, the Court

17

finds and concludes as follows:

18

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a subpoena (Dkt. 8) is DENIED. The request for

19

a subpoena is premature and appears unnecessary. The Court will issue an Order regarding pretrial

20

preparations setting relevant pretrial scheduling dates, including a deadline for the completion of

21

discovery, following the receipt of an answer to plaintiff’s complaint from defendants. Plaintiff

22

will be entitled to discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

23

defense” or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ.

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

P. 26(b)(1). He may request any documents relating to his phone privileges in a discovery request

2

to defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (discovery may be limited because it “can be

3

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.”)

4

Should a subpoena on a third party prove necessary, plaintiff would be required to comply

5

with all applicable rules and requirements. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)-(4) (the party

6

commanding production must request a subpoena from the clerk, complete it before service, and

7

give all parties notice prior to service). Also, while a party proceeding IFP may be entitled to

8

obtain service of a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), that party still remains responsible,

9

despite his or her IFP status, to pay all fees and costs associated with the subpoena. Tedder v.

10

Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989). See also United States v. Columbia Broadcasting

11

System, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982) (court may award costs of compliance with

12

subpoena to non-party).

13
14
15

(2)

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable

Ricardo S. Martinez.
DATED this 11th day of July, 2018.

16

A

17

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER
PAGE - 2