Opinion
C. A. 17-301WES
09-24-2024
JASON BOUDREAU, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN PETIT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING SECOND SUBPOENA TO RHODE ISLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel Rhode Island Attorney General's response to his Second Subpoena. ECF No. 118. Non-party Rhode Island Attorney General (“RIAG”) timely objected to Plaintiff's second subpoena because it was served by mail, was not in compliance with the Court's April 30, 2024, protocol and because the documents sought either are not in its custody or control or are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. ECF Nos. 109, 132. Because the objections based on lack of custody or control and on relevancy are sustained, the Court does not address the appropriateness of service by mail. As to the specific requests, first, RIAG represents that it has searched for and located no press releases regarding Plaintiff issued either in June 2014 or from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2015. ECF No. 132 at 3-4. Therefore, the motion to compel production of press releases is denied. Second, RIAG represents that it has searched for and located no chain of custody documents pertaining to the “Dell precision desktop computer”; therefore, the motion to compel such documents is denied. See id. at 5. Third, Plaintiff asks RIAG to produce documents that were provided to him as criminal discovery in connection with Plaintiff's state charge of possession of child pornography. Id. at 6-12. The Court finds that such a request seeks material that is not relevant to the surviving claims in this case, which is focused not on Plaintiff's 2011 crime of possession of child pornography but on Warwick Police Officer Petit's post-July 2013 conduct related to the now-dismissed embezzlement charge. Therefore, the motion to compel production of the child pornography criminal discovery is denied.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to compel Rhode Island Attorney General's response to his Second Subpoena (ECF No. 118) is DENIED.