Troupe v. Blakeman et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Service of Subpoena signed by Judge Karen L Strombom.(MET) ***3 PAGES, PRINT ALL***

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9 DAVID TROUPE,

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

CASE NO. C15-5261 RBL-KLS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SERVICE OF SUBPOENA

STEVEN BLAKEMAN, LYNN
WIERDSMA, THOMAS DELONG,
BRENDA MCKINNEY, (FNU) RN
13
YOUNG, (FNU) LT. MONGER, (FNU)
C/O BUTTRUM, (FNU) SGT. MILLER, L.
14
MCDONALD, JANE DOE (HSM),
12

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff David Troupe, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, requests the Clerk of

18 Court to serve a subpoena on “Risk Management Tort Claims” in Olympia, Washington,
19 commanding the production of “all unredacted copies of reports or complaints filed by David
20 Troupe against any DOC employee on record with this Tort Claims Dept.” Dkt. 14. Mr. Troupe
21 states that he is indigent and requires the requested records for this lawsuit because the records
22 will show “a history of problems with the defendants.” Id. The motion shall be denied because
23 the subpoena is overly broad on its face.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SERVICE
OF SUBPOENA - 1

1
2

DISCUSSION
Civil litigants are entitled to discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to

3 any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A discovery request need not call for
4 evidence that would be admissible at trial, so long as the request “appears reasonably calculated
5 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The court can limit discovery for numerous
6 reasons, including that the discovery sought “can be obtained from some other source that is
7 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
8

These general discovery limitations apply with equal force to subpoenas to third parties.

9 Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 679–80 (N.D.Cal.2006). A court can quash or modify
10 a subpoena that does not seek information that falls within the broad scope of permissible
11 discovery. Id. at 680. A party issuing a subpoena “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing
12 undue burden or expense” on the subpoena’s target and the court from which the subpoena issues
13 must enforce this restriction. See Fed .R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(1). The court must balance relevance,
14 the requesting party’s need for the information, and the hardship to the subpoena’s target.
15 Google, 234 F.R.D. at 680.
16

In this lawsuit Mr. Troupe has sued ten employees of the Department of Corrections

17 alleging that the defendants failed to protect him from serious self-harm and subjected him to
18 unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Mr. Troupe alleges that these events occurred at the
19 Clallam Bay Corrections Center in 2012. The document subpoena requested by Mr. Troupe (“all
20 unredacted copies of reports or complaints filed by David Troupe against any DOC employee on
21 record with this Tort Claims Dept.”) is overly broad on its face. First, the subpoena requests
22 documents presumably in Mr. Troupe’s possession as they were filed by him. Second, the
23 request is not limited to either the defendants named or the allegations asserted in this lawsuit.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SERVICE
OF SUBPOENA - 2

1 Third, while the Clerk of the Court may issue a subpoena, it remains up to Mr. Troupe, despite
2 his in forma pauperis status, to serve the subpoena and to bear any associated costs in
3 accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
4

This Order does not preclude Mr. Troupe from preparing a narrower subpoena, tailored to

5 documents relevant to this lawsuit. After he has submitted the subpoena to the Clerk, the Clerk
6 will issue it and return it to Mr. Troupe for service in accordance with Rule 45.
7
8

DATED this 8th day of June, 2015.

9

A

10

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SERVICE
OF SUBPOENA - 3