Lotusflower v. Headley

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 NONNIE MARCELLA LOTUSFLOWER, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C24-5948-JCC-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 CHARLOTTE HEADLEY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter is before the Court on Ms. Lotusflower’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 15 (see dkt. ## 30, 34) and Motion for Subpoena (dkt. # 27). 16 The Court GRANTS Ms. Lotusflower’s request for oral argument on her Motion for 17 Preliminary Injunction. To properly facilitate her participation, the Court ORDERS Defendants 18 to ensure that Ms. Lotusflower can attend via a non-collect and unmonitored telephone call, 19 videoconferencing technology, or any other method consistent with the requirements at the 20 facility where she is housed. Defendants are further instructed to coordinate with the Clerk to 21 schedule a time for oral argument. Each side will be allotted up to 15 minutes to present their 22 arguments. 23 1 Ms. Lotusflower has also moved for subpoenas to obtain various documents and 2 testimony from non-parties in support of her Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. # 27.) The 3 proposed subpoenas aim to acquire, from each third party,1 the following documents: (1) critical 4 incident review reports from October 2024 through January 2025; (2) documents related to

5 alleged abuse and corruption by Charlotte Headley and staff at Washington Corrections Center 6 for Women (“WCCW”) towards Ms. Lotusflower, including staff witness reports; (3) evidence 7 of abuse, such as videos, recordings, and setups; and (4) information regarding abusive mental 8 health conditions of confinement. (Id. at 2.) 9 The Court’s authorization of a subpoena duces tecum requested by an in forma pauperis 10 plaintiff is subject to specific limitations, including the relevance of the requested information 11 and the burden and expense imposed on the non-party in providing it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45. A 12 motion for issuing a subpoena duces tecum should be supported by a clear identification of the 13 documents sought and a demonstration that the records are obtainable only through the identified 14 third party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, 2010 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Williams v.

15 Adams, 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not 16 intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to 17 comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991). 18 Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of this Court’s vigilance” in considering these 19 factors. Id. 20 Here, Ms. Lotusflower has not demonstrated the relevance of the requested documents to 21 her pending request for a Preliminary Injunction, nor has she shown that she followed the 22 23 1 (1) Angie, a DOC ombudsperson; (2) Racheal Seevers, an attorney for Disability Rights Washington; and Dr. Lorin Brodie, a mental health doctor at WCCW. (Dkt. # 27 at 2.) 1 appropriate procedure to request a subpoena for a nonparty individual. Accordingly, Ms. 2 Lotusflower’s Motion for Subpoena is DENIED. 3 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable John 4 C. Coughenour.

5 Dated this 2nd day of April, 2025. 6 7 A 8 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23