Opinion
1:09-cv-02152-LJO-GSA-PC
09-29-2011
WILLIAM SUTHERLAND, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS
(Doc. 29.)
William Sutherland ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is presently in the discovery phase. On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for the clerk to send him four signed but otherwise blank subpoenas duces tecum to serve "upon the parties to which I am requesting documents." (Doc. 29.)
Plaintiff does not require subpoenas to request documents from parties. Pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "any party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party . . . to inspect, copy, test, or sample [designated documents] in the responding party's possession, custody or control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (emphasis added). Pursuant to the Court's Discovery/Scheduling Order issued on September 8, 2011 in this action, "discovery requests must be served at least forty-five (45) days before the discovery deadline [of May 8, 2012]," and "[r]esponses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the request is first served to respond." (Doc. 27 at ¶¶2, 3.) Therefore, to request documents from a party, Plaintiff only needs to serve a written request upon the party pursuant to the Federal Rules and the Court's order. Such initial requests should not be filed with the Court. Local Rule 250.3. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for subpoenas shall be denied.
"As provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled [by subpoena] to produce documents." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c) (emphasis added).
"Requests for production, responses and proofs of service thereof shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the request, response, or proof of service is at issue. When required in a proceeding, only that part of the request for production, response of proof of service that is in issue shall be filed." L.R. 250.3(c).
--------
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for subpoenas is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE