Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00855-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERRY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLEMENT OGBUEHI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA DUCES 

TECUM, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 51)

Gerry Williams (“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 proceeding against 

defendants Ogbuehi and Ulit based on allegations that Plaintiff’s Hepatitis C “went untreated 

despite his reports of excruciating pain,” and that “he received no treatment for his pain 

associated with Hepatitis C and cirrhosis.” (ECF No. 24, p. 2). 

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. 

(ECF No. 51). Plaintiff asks for permission to subpoena electronically stored information from 

Janet Bragg, a Communication Resource Manager at the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and Krissi Khokhobashvili, the Chief of Strategic Communication 

and External Affairs at CDCR. In particular, Plaintiff requests a video that is broadcasted on the 

Wellness Channel at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility twice a day. Plaintiff alleges 

that this video shows the procedure Defendants were supposed to use to cure Plaintiff’s Hepatitis 

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 52 Filed 08/15/22 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

C before it progressed to cirrhosis of the liver, as well as the extent of Plaintiff’s liver condition 

and its irreversible status.

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice. The Court informed Plaintiff 

that:

If Plaintiff seeks documents from someone who is not a party in this case, Plaintiff 

must file a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum with the Court. In 

any request for a subpoena, Plaintiff must: (1) identify the documents sought and 

from whom; (2) explain why the documents are relevant to the claims in this case; 

and (3) make a showing in the request that the records are only obtainable through 

a third party. If the Court approves the request, it may issue Plaintiff a subpoena 

duces tecum, commanding the production of documents from a non-party, and may 

command service of the subpoena by the United States Marshals Service. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a 

request only if the documents sought from the non-party are not obtainable from 

Defendant(s) through a Rule 34 request for production of documents.

(ECF No. 58, p. 4).

Plaintiff identified the information he is seeking and the individuals he is seeking it from. 

He also explained why he believes the information is relevant to his case. However, while 

Plaintiff alleges that this video is only available through third-parties, Plaintiff has not adequately 

shown that the information is not available through a Rule 34 request to Defendants. In their 

scheduling statement, Defendants indicated that they “do not believe that a third-party subpoena 

directed to CDCR will be necessary to obtain relevant documents.” (ECF No. 44, p. 4). Despite 

this, Plaintiff did not request the documents from Defendants before filing this motion.

If Defendants object to the discovery request because the information is in the possession, 

custody, or control of the CDCR and not Defendants, Plaintiff may renew his motion for the 

issuance of a subpoena.

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 52 Filed 08/15/22 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces 

tecum is DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing the motion if Defendants respond to 

Plaintiff’s discovery request by stating that the requested information is not in their possession, 

custody, or control.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 52 Filed 08/15/22 Page 3 of 3