(PC) Forster v. Clendenin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA FORSTER, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01191-NODJ-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A SUBPOENA DIRECTED 13 v. TO DEFENDANT PRICE

14 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., (Doc. 37)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Joshua Forster is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants 19 Clendenin and Price for violations of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights and related state 20 law violations. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 On September 13, 2023, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 28). 23 On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request For A Court Order: Ex 24 Parte,” seeking the issuance of several subpoenas. (Doc. 29.) 25 The Court issued its Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff’s Request For A Court 26 Order Re Subpoenas on September 25, 2023. (Doc. 30.) Relevant here, Plaintiff was advised of 27 the requirements for the issuance of subpoenas under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) 1 On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request For A Court Order 2 Directing The Clerk Of The Court To Issue A Subpoena To The Plaintiff And An Order For The 3 US Marshall Service To Serve The Subpoena: Ex Parte.” (Doc. 37.) 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 6 litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 7 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 8 2011)). 9 Plaintiff seeks issuance of a subpoena “to Defendant Brandon Price” for records 10 maintained by the Civil Detainees Advisory Committee (“CDAC”) “under Federal Rules of Civil 11 Procedure, Rule 45 (a) (2), (3).” (Doc. 37 at 1-2.) Plaintiff’s request will be denied. 12 As Plaintiff was previously advised, Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13 permits issuance of subpoenas to obtain discovery from non-parties equivalent to discovery from 14 parties under Rule 34. (See Doc. 30 2, n.1.) Brandon Price is a party to this action; he is not a 15 non-party. Thus, Rule 45 does not apply. 16 To the extent Plaintiff asserts he sought this information by way of a request for 17 production of documents directed to Defendant Price, but Price responded that the documents 18 were equally available to Plaintiff (see Doc. 37 at 2) and did not produce the sought after 19 documentation, Plaintiff’s remedy is to file a motion to compel further responses. As Plaintiff was 20 advised in the First Informational Order In Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case issued 21 September 21, 2022: 22 If a response to discovery is found to be unsatisfactory, the party seeking discovery may file a motion to compel a further response and 23 in that case must include a copy of the discovery propounded and the response to it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.[1] A motion to compel must be 24 accompanied by "a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party not making the 25

26 1 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court 27 may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 1 disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). A moving party should not seek to compel 2 production of documents which are equally available to that moving party, such as documents in plaintiffs central file. A discovery 3 motion that does not comply with applicable rules may be stricken and may result in imposition of sanctions. 4 5 | (Doc. 5 at 4-5.) Because Plaintiff finds Defendant Price’s response to his request for production 6 | of documents to be unsatisfactory, he may wish to file a motion to compel a further response. 7 | Plaintiff must meet the requirements listed above. Plaintiff is further advised the party moving to 8 | compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are the subject of the 9 | motion to compel; (2) which of the responses are disputed; (3) why the party believes the 10 | response is deficient; (4) why any objections are not justified; and (5) why the information sought 11 | through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. Haraszewski v. Knipp, No. 2:13- 12 | cv-2494 JAM DB P, 2020 WL 4676387, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020); McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 13 } 1:13-cv-01808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Finally, Plaintiff is 14 | advised that any motion to compel will be determined in accordance with Local Rule 230(/) and 15 || will be decided in due course.” 16 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that □□□□□□□□□□□ 18 | “Request For A Court Order Directing The Clerk Of The Court To Issue A Subpoena To The 19 || Plaintiff And An Order For The US Marshall Service To Serve The Subpoena: Ex Parte” (Doc. 20 | 37) is DENIED. 21 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | 2 — Dated: _ March 6, 2024 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 * The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is one of the busiest district courts in the nation. The undersigned carries a heavy caseload and delays regrettably are unavoidable. 28