Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00457-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER BRANDON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PORTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

NOVEMBER 7, 2024, REQUEST TO 

MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

(Doc. 53) 

Plaintiff Christopher Brandon Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on December 22, 2023. (Doc. 38.) 

On February 22, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request to Extend 

Discovery and Scheduling Order Deadlines. (Doc. 40.) 

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Extension to Filing Deadlines 

Request” (Doc. 45), and on September 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to 

Compel Discovery Pitches Motion” (Doc. 46). The following day, Plaintiff filed a document 

titled “Request for Extension to Filing Deadlines, Second Request.” (Doc. 47)

The Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Requests to Modify the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order on September 20, 2024. (Doc. 48.) Specifically, the deadline to complete 

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 54 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 6
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

discovery was extended to November 22, 2024, and the deadline for the filing of dispositive 

motions was extended to January 31, 2025. (Id. at 2.) 

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Relief of 25 

Interrogatory Limit” (Doc. 49) and on October 7, 2024, he filed a document titled “Memorandum 

in Support of Subpoena” (Doc. 50), docketed by the Clerk of the Court as a motion for subpoena. 

Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion to compel and motion concerning the 

interrogatory limit. (Docs. 51 & 53.) 

On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Request to Extend Discovery and Scheduling 

Order Deadlines by (60) Sixty Days.” (Doc. 53.) 

The Court notes Plaintiff’s motion to compel, motion concerning the interrogatory limit, 

and motion for subpoena, remain pending resolution on the undersigned’s docket. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Request to Extend Discovery Deadlines

Plaintiff asserts he has been “actively engaging in the discovery process” and has drafted a 

reply to Defendants’ opposition to his motion to compel but has been unable to “make the 

necessary copies” due to incidents at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he is presently housed, 

resulting in “shut down, delay” or cancellation of programs. (Doc. 53 at 1-2.) Plaintiff states he 

has sent the response to Defendants’ opposition “to his family outside of prison” in an effort to 

have copies made and returned to him so that he may then serve the response. (Id. at 2.) Next, 

Plaintiff states he submitted a subpoena for the production of video evidence, directed to 

California State Prison-Corcoran Warden Tammy L. Campbell, “which was scheduled for 

October 26, 2024 at 10 a.m.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts Warden Campbell “never showed nor sent any 

reasoning or request to reschedule,” nor has he “been given an opportunity to review the 

requested video evidence in the subpoena.” (Id.) He states he “now has to research the appropriate 

response for failing to comply with a subpoena which adds to the massive amount of work being 

pushed upon Plaintiff to obtain the documents and video evidence Plaintiff is entitled to by law.” 

(Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff further states he is researching spoliation of evidence and “needs additional 

time.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also asserts he is preparing a response to Defendants’ opposition to his 

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 54 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 6
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

request concerning relief from the 25-interrogatory limit. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that due to the 

legal research required for the above, “the inconsistency of access to legal library to obtain 

copies,” and the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the current discovery deadline is 

not sufficient.” (Doc. 53 at 3.) He asks the Court “to stay its ruling” on his motion to compel until 

it receives his reply. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts he “has received zero cooperation from Defendants or 

the Subpoena to obtain discovery Plaintiff has a legal right to ....” (Id.) Plaintiff requests the 

Court modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order by extending the current deadlines by 60 days. 

(Id.) 

Applicable Legal Standards

District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 

litigation under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 

F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good 

cause and by leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), (b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In considering whether a party moving for a 

schedule modification has shown good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the 

party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory 

committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). When an act must be done within a specified time, the 

court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if 

a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs subpoenas, which are the 

mechanism for obtaining discovery and testimony from non-parties.1 A subpoena may be issued 

by the Court, the Clerk of the Court, or an attorney as an officer of the Court for witnesses and 

documents found within its jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2), (3). Although Rule 45(a)(3) 

provides that “[t]he clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise blank, to a party who 

1 Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits issuance of subpoenas to obtain discovery from non-parties 

equivalent to discovery from parties under Rule 34. See Adv. Comm. Note to 1991 Amendment to FRCP 45. Rule 34 

governs discovery of designated documents, electronically stored information, and designated tangible things subject 

to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Meeks v. Parsons, No. 1:03-cv-6700-LJO-GSA, 2009 WL 

3003718, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009) (citing Fahey v. United States, 18 F. R. D. 231, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)).

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 54 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 6
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

requests it,” a subpoena will not issue in a prisoner civil rights action until Plaintiff demonstrates 

to the Court that its issuance is appropriate as further detailed below.

A pro se plaintiff’s ability to obtain a subpoena commanding the production of documents 

from a non-party is subject to certain requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(c), 45. The Court 

will only consider issuing a subpoena if the documents sought from the non-party are not 

otherwise available to a plaintiff and cannot be obtained from a defendant through a request for 

the production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34; see, e.g., Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home 

Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 412 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (quashing subpoena where party already 

had the information and/or the opportunity to obtain it). Further, a pro se plaintiff’s request for a 

subpoena must identify with specificity the documents sought and from whom. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 45(a)(1); see, e.g., Jeffrey v. Bennge, No. 1:06-cv-00752-OWW-SMS P, 2008 WL 4584786, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2008).

If a defendant objects to a plaintiff's discovery request, plaintiff must next file a motion to 

compel. Fed R. Civ. P. 37(a). Only if the Court rules that the documents are discoverable, but that 

defendant does not have care, custody, and control of them, may plaintiff then seek to subpoena a 

non-party. Additionally, as with all discovery requests, the plaintiff's right to subpoena

information is limited by Rule 26(b); that is, he is only entitled to obtain “discovery regarding any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

The Court will not issue a subpoena for a non-party unless a plaintiff has followed the above

procedure and the information that he seeks falls within the scope of 26(b).

Rule 26(b)(1) establishes the scope of discovery, stating in pertinent part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that 

is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake 

in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access 

to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense 

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information 

within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to 

be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). These standards mean that the Court may grant a request by a plaintiff to 

issue a Rule 45 subpoena to a properly identified non-party to discover information that is 

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 54 Filed 11/13/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

relevant to the party's claims or defenses, is not burdensome, and is not within a plaintiff's 

reasonable access, upon a sufficient showing of the importance of the information.

Analysis

Here, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines for the completion of discovery 

and for the filing of dispositive motions due to Plaintiff’s diligence and the ongoing limited 

ability to access the law library at his current institution. The Court will further extend the 

deadlines associated with Plaintiff’s replies to Defendants’ oppositions to the motions to compel 

and request to exceed the interrogatory limit. 

The Court advises Plaintiff that it has not yet had the opportunity to rule on his motion to 

compel, request to exceed the interrogatory limit, or his filing of October 7, 2024, docketed as a 

motion for subpoena. This Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation. At present, the 

undersigned presides over approximately 90 active prisoner civil rights cases in various states of 

litigation, and more than 300 other civil cases. Plaintiff’s motions will be decided in due course 

and after they have been deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). This means a subpoena 

has not been issued by this Court for the video evidence Plaintiff presently seeks and therefore the 

warden2has not failed to comply with any subpoena. As noted above, Plaintiff must comply with 

the applicable procedure for obtaining a subpoena; the Court will address whether Plaintiff has 

done so in due course. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request to extend certain discovery deadlines (Doc. 53) is GRANTED;

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED as follows:

a. The deadline the completion of discovery is extended from November 22, 

2024, to Tuesday, January 21, 2025; and

b. The dispositive motion filing deadline is extended from January 31, 2025, to 

Tuesday, April 1, 2025; and

2 California State Prison-Corcoran Warden Tammy L. Campbell is not a party to this action.

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 54 Filed 11/13/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

3. The Court extends the deadline, associated with Local Rule 230(l), for a reply to an 

opposition to a motion. Plaintiff SHALL file any replies to Defendants’ oppositions to 

his motion to compel and motion concerning interrogatory limits no later than 

December 3, 2024. No further extension of time for replies will be entertained. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 54 Filed 11/13/24 Page 6 of 6