Opinion
1:19-cv-01338-AWI-JLT (PC)
09-21-2021
EARNEST S. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. D. NEVE, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR SERVICE OF SUBPOENA (DOC. 56)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a subpoena deuces tecum, (Doc. 53), which the Court construed as a request to have the subpoena served by the U.S. Marshal Service, (Doc. 54). On August 31, 2021, the Court denied the request because Plaintiff had not “demonstrated that he [had] made a request to Defendant for production of the documents [he sought, ] that the documents [we]re in the possession of a non-party, or that Plaintiff [wa]s entitled to the documents.” (Doc. 54 at 2.)
On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second subpoena deuces tecem. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff attaches to the subpoena Defendant's responses to his first set of requests for production of documents. (Id. at 3-6.) However, Plaintiff again fails to show that the documents he seeks are in the possession of a non-party or that he is entitled to the documents. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's second request for service of a subpoena (Doc. 56). Plaintiff should not file another subpoena with the Court, unless he includes with it a proper motion that makes the showing described in the Court's August 31, 2021 order.
It appears that documents Plaintiff seeks are in the possession of Defendant and that Plaintiff wishes to subpoena Defendant's counsel to compel production of the documents. The Court notes that a discovery dispute with Defendant concerning a request for production may not be resolved by filing a separate subpoena with the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.