Stewart v. Schreiner

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 ANTHONY STEWART, Case No. 2:23-cv-00277-MMD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. [Docket No. 54] 10 NICOLETTE JOY HAWKINS, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Las Vegas Metropolitan 13 Police Department (“LVMPD”) to file the last known address of Defendant Schreiner under seal. 14 Docket No. 54.1 No response was filed. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See 15 Local Rule 78-1. 16 Plaintiff attempted service once on Defendant Schreiner through LVMPD. See Docket No. 17 19. Because Defendant Schreiner is no longer employed by LVMPD, however, service was not 18 effectuated. See id. Plaintiff’s current motion seeks information from LVMPD as to Defendant 19 Schreiner’s current address to attempt service again. See Docket No. 54 at 1.2 20 LVMPD is not a party to this case, so Plaintiff’s request is more naturally considered as 21 seeking a subpoena for the information sought. See McGee v. Cnty. of Riverside, 2022 U.S. Dist. 22 Lexis 193707, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022). While such a subpoena is potentially available to 23 Plaintiff, parties have a duty to avoid unnecessary service expenses, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), and 24 courts generally refrain from utilizing the subpoena process for similar types of information when 25

26 1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, particularly those who are prisoners bringing civil rights claims. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). 27 2 No explanation is provided as to why Plaintiff is seeking Defendant Schreiner’s banking 28 information, see id., so that request will be denied. 1] opposing counsel may readily provide it, see, e.g., Picozzi v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr.,2016 U.S. Dist. 2|| Lexis 152607, at *5-6 (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2016); McGee, 2022 U.S. Dist. Lexis 193707, at *2. 3 To expedite resolution of the case on its merits and in lieu of directing issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, the Court will direct counsel for Defendant Hawkins to investigate whether 5] LVMPD has a last known address for Defendant Schreiner. See id. at *6. Counsel must file a 6] notice on the public docket identifying whether LVMPD has such information. If LVMPD does 7|| have such information, counsel must file under seal the last known address for Defendant Schreiner 8|| by June 11, 2025. Doing so will protect the confidential information of law enforcement personnel, 9| while providing sufficient information for the United States Marshals Service to attempt service 10] again. If contact information is provided by counsel, Plaintiff must file a motion requesting an 11] order for the Marshals Service to attempt service again. Plaintiff must file this motion by June 25, 12} 2025. 13 As stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion requesting the LVMPD to provide 14] the last known address of Defendant Schreiner to the Court under seal. The deadline to effectuate 15]| service is EXTENDED to July 30, 2025. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: May 28, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28