Because personal service of the subpoenas is required, “[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court.” Jackson v. Paramo, 2018 WL 4537746, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018) (quoting Alexander v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931, at *3 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2010)). Courts must also be vigilant to ensure that non-parties are not burdened with excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena.

Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required, "[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court." Alexander v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2010) (quoting Austin v. Winett, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008) ) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Also, the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum."

The authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by a forma pauperis litigant is subject to limitations. Alexander v. California Dep't of Corr., 2010 WL 5114931 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required under Rule 45(b), “[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena

Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required, "[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court." Alexander v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2010) (quoting Austin v. Winett, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008)) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Also, the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum."

However, the authorization of a subpoena duces tecum by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject to limitations. See Heilman, 2010 WL 5168871, at *1; Johnson v. Cheryl, 2013 WL 129383 at *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 9, 2013) (unpublished) (citing Alexander v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2010 WL 5114931 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010)). Because personal service of a subpoena duces tecum is required under Rule 45(b), "[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court."

"Directing the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court." Edwards v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 2015 WL 4623314, *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2015) (citing Alexander v. California Dep't of Corr., 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010) (alteration omitted). Before tasking the U.S. Marshal with serving a pro se plaintiff's subpoena, this Court must be persuaded that the information sought meets a minimal threshold.

By extension, the authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject to limitations. See Alexander v. California Dep't of Corrections, No. 2:08-cv-2773 MCE KJN P, 2010 WL 5114931, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). Limitations include "the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information."

"Limitations include the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information." Alexander v. California Dep't of Corr., No. 2:08-CV-2773 MCE-KJN-P, 2010 WL 5114931, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by clear identification of the documents sought and a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party.

Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires personal service of a subpoena, "'[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court,' Austin v. Winett, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)." Alexander v. California Dept. of Corr., 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information.

Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires personal service of a subpoena, "[d]irecting the Marshal's Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court, ' Austin v. Winett , 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)." Alexander v. California Dept. of Corr. , 2:08-CV-2773, 2010 WL 5114931, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). Limitations include the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the requested information.