Opinion
1:19-cv-00255-JLT (PC)
07-01-2021
HECTOR ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. H. ANGLEA, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS (DOCS. 60, 65, 67, 68, 69)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff has filed several motions relating to discovery in this matter, and Defendant has filed an oppositional response to each motion. The parties are reminded that the discovery cut-off date is August 17, 2021. (Doc. 59.)
Plaintiff filed a pleading styled as a “motion to gather evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), ” which establishes the scope of discovery in civil cases. (See Doc. 60.) Defendant filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 61.) Plaintiff's pleading appears to be a discovery request directed to the Legislative Analyst's Office of CDCR. It does not seek any relief from the Court, and therefore Plaintiff's “motion” is DENIED.
Plaintiff has filed requests for subpoenas from the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff seeks a subpoena for the production of documents, a subpoena to appear and testify at a hearing or trial, and two subpoenas duces tecum for deposition. (Docs. 65, 67.) Defendant filed responses in opposition based on the lack of information provided by Plaintiff for the issuance of subpoenas. (Docs. 70, 71.) Plaintiff's request for a subpoena for the production of documents fails to specify the information to be produced or to whom the request is made. Plaintiff's request for a subpoena to appear and testify at a hearing or trial does not indicate the date or type of hearing (currently no hearings or trial are scheduled) or to whom the subpoena is directed. Plaintiff's request for two subpoenas duces tecum does not identify the witnesses to be deposed, the documents to be produced, a date and time for the depositions, or the method for recording the testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff must have the ability to pay witness fees and mileage. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(b)(1). Because Plaintiff has not provided information necessary for the Clerk of the Court to issue subpoenas, Plaintiff's requests for subpoenas are DENIED.
Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel. (Docs. 68, 69.) Defendant filed a response in opposition to the first motion, and the time for response to the second motion is not yet due. (Doc. 75.) In his first motion to compel, Plaintiff alleges that he requested incident logs related to this action from his correctional counselor at Valley State Prison, who informed him that he lacked the funds ($48.60) to print 486 pages. Plaintiff's request appears to have been an informal request rather than through a Rule 45 subpoena. As such, the Court is without a legal basis to compel discovery from a non-party, and the motion to compel is DENIED.
In his second motion to compel, Plaintiff incorporates a request for production directed at the CDCR's custodian of records. (Doc. 69 at 5.) Plaintiff's motion, however, does not indicate that this request, either informally or by subpoena, was served on CDCR prior to filing his motion to compel or that the custodian of records failed to respond despite a valid subpoena. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is premature and is also DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to gather evidence, Plaintiff's requests for subpoenas, and Plaintiff's motions to compel. (Docs. 60, 65, 67, 68, 69.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.