Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077-15/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 DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE COURTESY COPY OF MOTION TO

COMPEL (Doc. 78) ON COUNSEL FOR

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS 

 Louis Francis (“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. 

On September 29, 2006, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”) filed a Motion to Quash and/or Modify Rule 45 subpoenas and set the matter for

hearing before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii on November 6, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. 

On October 5, 2006, this Court vacated the hearing and Ordered that the Motion to Quash

be stricken from the record as the moving party failed to serve the Plaintiff with a copy of the

Motion to Quash. In that Order, the Court advised both the moving party and Plaintiff that all

pleadings pertaining to the production of documents by a non-party be served on the relevant

party. 

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 80 Filed 10/19/06 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

On October 12, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel compliance with the subpoenas

served on the non-party California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. However,

Plaintiff served only counsel for Defendants and not the non-party responsible for responding to

the subpoenas. Ordinarily, such failure would justify striking the pleading from the record. 

However, because counsel representing the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation failed to serve Plaintiff with the initial Motion to Quash, Plaintiff was not

provided with the information needed to effect service on the non-party with respect to his

Motion to Compel compliance with the subpoenas. Accordingly, the Court declines to strike the

Motion to Compel from the record and will DIRECT the Clerk of Court to serve a courtesy copy

of the Motion to Compel filed on October 12, 2006, on the legal representative for the CDCR. 

The CDCR may respond to the Motion to Compel within the time frames allotted by the local

rules. Local Rule 78-230(c).

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a courtesy copy on the legal

representative of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the

party to whom the Rule 45 subpoenas for production of documents were directed. 

According to the Court record, the legal representative for the CDCR is: 

Suzanne Foley-Sprague and/or Guy Douglas Borges 

McNamara, Doge, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Pfalzer & Borges, L.L.P.

639 Kentucky Street, First Floor 

Fairfield, California 94533. 

Plaintiff is again informed that any pleadings filed concerning the Rule 45 subpoenas

must be served on the opposing party as well as the non-party to whom the subpoenas were

directed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 80 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 2