Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077-8/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

LOUIS FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.L. BRYANT, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5077 AWI SMS P 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING

MOTION TO COMPEL (Docs. 36, 32.) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR ISSUANCE OF RULE 45 SUBPOENAS

AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ISSUE SUBPOENAS (Doc. 37) 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO EXTEND

DISCOVERY DEADLINE (Doc. 38.) 

Louis Frances (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on January

14, 2004, alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights by defendants H.L. Bryant, G.L.

Honest, and G. Galaza. On October 17, 2005, the Court issued a Scheduling and Discovery

Order setting the deadline for discovery as June 19, 2006. 

On March 20, 2006, Plaintiff moved to compel discovery. The Court denied the Motion

in part and granted it in part on April 12, 2006. On April 17, 2006, Defendants moved for

reconsideration of the Order granting the Motion to Compel. Plaintiff did not respond to the

Motion for Reconsideration. 

On May 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Request for leave to serve subpoenas on non-parties

pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff also moved to extend the

discovery deadline on May 30, 2006. Defendants opposed the Motion on June 1, 2006. 

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 5
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

A. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 60 allows the court to reconsider its decisions and provides relief from judgment or

order for a variety of enumerated reasons. See Fed.R.Civ.P 60. Rule 60(b)(1) states: "On motion

and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect[.]" Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) provides that a

judgment may be vacated for "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment." 

A "motion for reconsideration must accomplish two goals. First, a motion for

reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision.

Second, a motion for reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature

to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947

F.Supp. 429, 430 (D.Haw.1996). Courts have established only three grounds justifying

reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the discovery of new evidence

not previously available; and (3) the need to correct clear or manifest error in law or fact in order

to prevent manifest injustice. See Mustafa v. Clark County School Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178-79

(9th Cir.1998); Great Hawaiian Fin. Corp. v. Aiu, 116 F.R.D. 612, 616 (D.Haw.1987), rev'd on

other grounds, 863 F.2d 617 (9th Cir.1988). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an

insufficient basis for reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and

legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision. Hawaii

Stevedores. Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D.Haw.2005). "Whether or not to

grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court." Navajo Nation v.

Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.2003)

(citing Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir.2000)).

In this case, Defendants argue that the Court mistakenly inferred that Defendant Galaza or

his Attorney has possession, custody or control over Plaintiff’s medical file because Defendant or

his attorney has possession of some of the documents contained in that file. (Motion at 4.) 

Defendant states that the only reason his attorney was able to respond to some of Plaintiff’s

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 5
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

requests only because he had requested selected documents from Plaintiff’s central and medical

files at the outset of the case. Id. at 5. Defendant contends further that although Defendants may

request such documents and that such request might be honored, they have no legal right to

demand or obligation to obtain the documents. As such, Defendants declined to request the

documents in order to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants argue that the

Court’s Order denying the Motion to Compel is “unfair.” 

While technically the Defendants are correct that they are not “legally obligated” to

obtain the requested documents to produce or authenticate them, the Office of the Attorney

General has been cooperative in this regard for many years in order to streamline the litigation of

Section 1983 actions filed by inmates and to preserve both judicial and state government

resources. This is especially true where, as in this instance, counsel can and has obtained the

requisite documents at the outset of the case. However, in this case, Counsel for Defendants has

elected to forestall the process by requiring Plaintiff to seek permission to serve subpoenas on

non-parties in order to obtain documents which Defendants concede they may have obtained by

making such a request. As a result, the United States Marshal will be required to serve nonparties on Plaintiff’s behalf and any non-parties will have to retain legal counsel in order to move

to quash any subpoenas served should they desire to so move. Again, while Defendant’s are

legally correct, the Court looks at Defendant’s unwillingness to cooperate create a waste of

judicial and legal resources for all concerned. The request for reconsideration is GRANTED and

the Motion to Compel is DENIED. 

B. MOTION FOR RULE 45 SUBPOENAS 

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs discovery of non-parties by

subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 ("Rule 45"). The “scope of discovery through a subpoena is the

same as that applicable to Rule 34 and other discovery rules." Rule 45, Advisory Committee

Note (1970). Under Rule 34 which governs the production of documents between parties, the

proper scope of discovery is as specified in Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. See also Heat &

Control, Inc. v. Hester Industries, Inc., 785 F.2d 1017 (Fed.Cir.1986) ("rule 45(b)(1) must be

read in light of Rule 26(b)"); Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Cir.1994) (applying both Rule 26 and Rule 45 standards to rule on a motion to quash subpoena). 

Rule 26(b), in turn, permits the discovery of any non-privileged material "relevant to the claim or

defense of any party," where "relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Rule 26(b)(1).

For the purposes of discovery, relevancy is defined broadly, however, it is not without "ultimate

and necessary boundaries." Pacific Gas and Elec., Co. v. Lynch, No. C-01-3023 VRW, 2002 WL

32812098, at *1 (N.D.Cal. August 19, 2002) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67

S.Ct. 385 (1947)). 

In this case, Plaintiff has requested eight (8) subpoenas for various documents he wishes

to obtain. Plaintiff’s requests appear relevant to his Eighth Amendment conditions of

confinement claim. Accordingly, the requests for subpoenas is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court

will be DIRECTED to forward Plaintiff eight (8) unissued subpoenas which Plaintiff will be

required to complete and return to the Court for service by the U.S. Marshal. 

C. MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

On May 30, 2006, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery deadline. Plaintiff indicated

that pending before the Court was Plaintiff’s Rule 45 Motion and that were the Court to grant the

request, more time would be needed to serve the subpoenas on the non-parties. 

Defendant’s Opposed the Motion on June 1, 2006, stating that Plaintiff had sufficient

time to conduct all discovery, Defendant’s have responded to all discovery propounded and thus,

the request should be denied. 

While the Court generally affords the parties ample time to conduct discovery, in this

case, Plaintiff could not propound discovery on non-parties without court permission. As noted

above, Plaintiff utilized the discovery mechanisms available to him to obtain numerous

documents from Defendants but was unable to do so and thus, he timely requested the issuance

of Rule 45 subpoenas. Also pending before the Court was the instant Motion for

Reconsideration of the Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in part and denying in part,

the resolution of which would necessarily affect whether or not a Rule 45 subpoena was

necessary. Contrary to Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause,

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 06/07/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff should take care to direct the subpoenas to the appropriate party having custody or control over

the documents sought. 

5

the Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts and inability to obtain documents sought within the designated

time frame are good cause for an extension of the discovery deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

request is GRANTED. Court will reset the discovery, amended pleadings and dispositive motion

deadlines below. 

D. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

is DENIED; 

2. The Motion for Rule 45 Subpoenas is GRANTED;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to forward Plaintiff eight (8) UNISSUED

subpoenas. Plaintiff is to complete and return the subpoenas to the Court

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order;

1

 and

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline is GRANTED. The

following deadlines shall now apply to this case: 

Discovery Deadline - 08/2506

Amended Pleadings Deadline - 09/25/06

Dispositive Motion Deadline - 10/25/06

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 42 Filed 06/07/06 Page 5 of 5