Heilman v. Lyons

30 Citing cases

  1. Loggins v. Burleigh Cnty.

    1:24-cv-106 (D.N.D. Oct. 24, 2024)

    ....Non-parties are entitled to have the benefit of the Court's vigilance.” (internal citations, quotation marks, and modifications omitted)); Heilman v. Lyons, No. 2:09-cv-2721 KJN, 2010 WL 5168871 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010) (“Proper reliance on a subpoena duces tecum is limited by the relevance standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) . . . and considerations of burden and expense set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2) and 45(c)(1).”

  2. Boudreau v. Petit

    C. A. 17-301WES (D.R.I. Jun. 21, 2024)

    “Proper reliance on a subpoena duces tecum is limited by the relevance standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) . . . and considerations of burden and expense set forth in [the] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Heilman v. Lyons, No. 2:09-cv-2721-KJN P, 2010 WL 5168871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010); see also Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dinesh Verma Med., P.C., No. 22-CV-2893 (GRB) (JMW), 2023 WL 2771638, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2023) (subpoena issued to non-party pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 is subject to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)'s “overriding relevance requirement”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Domni v. County of Nassau, 19-CV-0083 (JMA) (AKJ), 2021 WL 9638656, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 2021) (requiring pro se litigant to obtain permission of court prior to issuance of a subpoena does not violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). To manage these concerns, it is appropriate for a court to proactively oversee the Clerk's office's issuance of subpoenas to pro se litigants to prevent abuse of the power of Fed.R.Civ.P. 45.

  3. Forster v. Clendenin

    1:22-cv-01191-ADA-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2023)

    28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” Heilman v. Lyons, No. 2:09-cv-2721 KJN P, 2010 WL 5168871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

  4. Shockner v. Soltanian

    2: 18-cv-1948 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022)

    However, a party's reliance on a subpoena duces tecum is limited by the relevance standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) (“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claims or defense”) and by the court's duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1) to ensure that a subpoena does not impose “undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” “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.'” Heilman v. Lyons, 2010 WL 5168871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010) (quoting Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D.Pa.1991) (requiring indigent plaintiff to demonstrate that he had “made provision for the costs of such discovery”); see also United States v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982) (court may award costs of compliance with subpoena to non-party); Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1) (“A party ... responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court ... must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction- which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees-on a party ... who fails to comply.”)

  5. Gomez v. Unknown

    Case No. 2:20-cv-2259-JDP (P) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021)

    Plaintiff must fill in the form and return it to the court, at which point the court will direct the U.S. Marshal to serve the subpoena. See Heilman v. Lyons, 2:09-cv-2721 KJN P, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136449, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010).

  6. Hossain v. Job Serv. N.D.

    Case No. 1:20-cv-009 (D.N.D. Nov. 20, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Stockdale v. Stockdale, 2009 WL 4030758 at *1; see also Lynch v. Burnett, No. 18CV01677DMSJLB, 2020 WL 5517577, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020) ("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....Non-parties are entitled to have the benefit of the Court's vigilance." (internal citations, quotation marks, and modifications omitted)); Heilman v. Lyons, No., 2010 WL 5168871 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010) ("Proper reliance on a subpoena duces tecum is limited by the relevance standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) . . . and considerations of burden and expense set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2) and 45(c)(1)."). III.

  7. Hodge v. Rueter

    No. 2:19-cv-1956-EFB-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 22, 2020)

    Plaintiff shall fill in the form and return it to the court, and the court will direct the U.S. Marshal to serve the subpoena. See Heilman v. Lyons, 2:09-cv-2721 KJN P, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136449, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010). II. Order

  8. Gardner v. Whatcom Cnty.

    Case No. C19-1451-MJP-MLP (W.D. Wash. May. 8, 2020)

    Accordingly, the issuance of a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) "is subject to limitations." Casterlow-Bey v. Trafford Publ'g. Co., 2017 WL 11358483, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 30, 2017) (quoting Heilman v. Lyons, 2010 WL 5168871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010)). Here, as leave of court is not required for plaintiff to obtain a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3), that portion of plaintiff's motion is stricken as unnecessary.

  9. Coleman v. Virga

    No. 2: 17-cv-0851 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2019)

    Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, "is generally entitled to obtain service of a subpoena duces tecum by the United States Marshal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)." Heilman v. Lyons, 2010 WL 5168871 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010). 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."

  10. Joia v. Jozon Enters., Inc.

    C.A. No. 18-365WES (D.R.I. Mar. 14, 2019)

    A plaintiff granted IFP may be entitled to obtain service of a subpoena duces tecum by the U.S. Marshals Service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Heilman v. Lyons, No. 2:09-cv-2721 KJN P, 2010 WL 5168871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010) ("Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is generally entitled to obtain service of a subpoena duces tecum by the United States Marshal."); Jackson v. Brinker, No. IP 91-471-C, 1992 WL 404537, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 1992). However, the relevance standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) still applies, Heilman, 2010 WL 5168871, at *1, and the Court must examine the cost of complying with the subpoena.