Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01980/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01980-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE FORTE,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TIMOTHY SCHWARTZ,

 Defendant.

1:13-cv-1980-LJO-MJS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION (Doc. 99)

On February 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Snyder denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for 

the Court to issue numerous subpoenas, finding that Plaintiff’s requested subpoenas did not comply with 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) or 45(d). Doc. 78 at 3. Plaintiff did not contest or appeal that 

order. As discussed at the December 15, 2016 pre-trial conference, Magistrate Judge Snyder explained 

in detail the deficiencies with Plaintiff’s subpoena request and how he could cure them at a March 2, 

2016 status conference. Plaintiff made no attempt to do so, despite Magistrate Judge Snyder’s invitation

with clear, specific, and detailed instructions.

Instead, the Plaintiff waited until six weeks before the scheduled jury trial, at the pre-trial 

conference, where he repeatedly explained his position, that he disagreed with Magistrate Judge 

Snyder’s denial of his request for subpoenas. The Court explained to Plaintiff that, because he did not 

appeal that denial to this Court or to the Ninth Circuit, the Court would not re-visit Magistrate Judge 

Snyder’s order, issued ten months ago. The Court further explained that, to the extent Plaintiff was 

moving to reopen discovery, his request was denied as untimely and without the good cause needed for 

relief..

Case 1:13-cv-01980-LJO-MJS Document 101 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Plaintiff now applies ex parte for an order directing the Clerk of Court “to immediately provide 

subpoenas” to [him] when requested by him. Doc. 99 at 1. For the reasons thoroughly explained at the 

pre-trial conference, on the record, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application. 

Also as explained at the pre-trial conference, if Plaintiff requests subpoenas ordering witnesses’ 

attendance at trial, his request should say so. Presently, it appears clear that the subpoenas being 

requested by the Plaintiff are for discovery purposes to prepare for trial. This was specifically what the 

Plaintiff was told yesterday at the Pretrial Conference that he was not entitled to do. Request DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01980-LJO-MJS Document 101 Filed 12/16/16 Page 2 of 2