Lewis v. Pugh
ORDER re 6 Request for Issuance of Subpoena filed by Justin Edward Lewis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Justin Lewis, Prisoner ID: 807814)(CMG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 JUSTIN EDWARD LEWIS,
CASE NO. C17-5227 RJB-KLS
ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
11 RYAN PUGH,
On April 4, 2017, the Court received Plaintiff Justin Edward Lewis’ subpoena duces
tecum addressed to the “Department of Corrections Shelton Prison,” requesting production of
“All DVR camera record of R6 Big Yard on December 25, 2016.” Dkt. 6. The Court declines to
issue the subpoena at this time because it is premature. The Court directed service of plaintiff’s
civil rights complaint on March 29, 2017 (Dkt. 5), but the time for defendant to answer the
complaint has not yet passed. This is a discovery request that plaintiff should serve on the
defendant pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the production of
documents after the defendant has been served with the complaint.
Although the defendant may not have possession, custody, or control of the documents
requested, a “party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity
ORDER REGARDING SUBPOENA - 1
1 if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in
2 possession of the document.” See e.g., Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619
3 (N.D.Cal.1995) (citing Buckley v. Vidal, 50 F.R.D. 271, 274 (S.D.N.Y.1970)). Although the
4 Department of Corrections is not a party to this action, it is the Court's experience that a
5 defendant employed by the Department can generally obtain documents by simply requesting
6 them from his/her employer. If defendant objects to plaintiff’s discovery request on the grounds
7 that he does not have possession, custody, or control of the documents in question, the defendant
8 must set forth facts that persuasively demonstrate why he does not have access to the documents
The Court does not involve itself in the parties’ discovery efforts unless a dispute arises
11 over production of the information requested. If it becomes necessary to file a motion to compel
12 production of the information requested, plaintiff is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and LCR
13 37(a)(1), which require that the parties first meet and confer with each other in an effort to
14 resolve the dispute without court action.
DATED this 14th day of April, 2017.
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING SUBPOENA - 2
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?