Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354-8/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

MOU SENG SEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DISCOVERY WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 39)

Plaintiff Mou Seng See (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendants Rivas, Roman, Rivera, and Dorado for deliberate indifference to the need for medical 

care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery, requesting that the Court issue 

subpoenas duces tecum for body worn camera footage and other records pertaining to materials 

initially requested through discovery. (ECF No. 39.) On August 13, 2024, counsel for 

Defendants filed a response indicating that the parties met and conferred telephonically on August 

5, 2024 to discuss the requested materials. (ECF No. 40.) Communication remains ongoing and 

the parties agreed that Defendants will serve responses by August 16. (Id.)

As it appears the instant discovery dispute has been fully resolved pending further 

responses or communications between the parties, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery will be denied, 

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 41 Filed 08/14/24 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

26

27

28

2

without prejudice. Plaintiff is reminded that, if necessary, he may renew his request for thirdparty subpoenas by filing a motion that: (1) sets forth the specific documents requested and from 

whom; (2) demonstrates that the documents are only obtainable through the third party; and (3) 

establish the relevance of the requested documents to any claim or defense.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery, (ECF No. 39), is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 41 Filed 08/14/24 Page 2 of 2