Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

MICHAEL A. TODD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A. LAMARQUE, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 03-3995 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 370 & 396]

Before the Court is the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response

and Objections to Subpoena of Lieutenant James McCall (the “Objections”) [Docket No. 370] and

plaintiff Michael A. Todd.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Live Testimony of

James McCall (the “Motion”) [Docket No. 396]. For the following reasons, the Court

OVERRULES the objections and GRANTS the Motion.

BACKGROUND

On February 8, 2008, plaintiff issued a subpoena to James McCall, an employee of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the “CDCR”) at the Salinas Valley State

Prison (the “SVSP”), commanding him to appear to testify at trial, on February 27, 2008, at

8:30 a.m., and to produce certain documents, in court, on February 11, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. The

subpoena requested McCall produce:

All documents found in files concerning any investigation in which R.C. Garcia, F.

Chavez, P. Lord, C. Cuykendall, R. Binkele, D.T. Jamison, Michael Collier, Greg

Salazar and/or Gary Jordan was a subject, including without limitation the

investigation files concerning these people for which you or others in your office had

“hits” during the document search described by you during your testimony on

January 31, 2008.

///

///

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 402 Filed 02/28/08 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

1 Rule 45(c)(3)(A) state, in part.

When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a

subpoena that: ....

(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel

more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts

business in person--except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be

commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the

trial is held; 

...; or

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(i), (iv).

2

ANALYSIS

The CDCR objects on the following grounds:

I. Date for Production of February 11, 2008

The CDCR claims “it would appear” the date came from a prior subpoena, and was not

changed. The CDCR claims this date does not allow a “reasonable” time for compliance as required

by Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(i), which states “On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a

subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(i)

(emphasis added).

The Court notes the CDCR did not file an objection until February 15, 2008, four days after

production was due. The parties and the CDCR have been involved in discovery issues over these

investigative files for a long, long time, which the CDCR at one time had denied existed. On

January 31, 2008, in Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s courtroom, McCall testified a computer search

conducted in response to an earlier subpoena had identified investigative files existed, but he had not

looked in them. Plaintiff and the CDCR met-and-conferred regarding their objections, but the

CDCR allegedly broke off discussions and filed a privilege log. The Court concludes it would be

appropriate to modify the subpoena’s production date to read February 28, 2008.

II. McCall is more than 100 miles away from the Court.

The CDCR argues McCall need not appear, as he works at the SVSP, more than 100 miles

away from the Court. The Court notes Rule 45(c)(3)(A) requires a court to modify or quash a

subpoena, on a timely motion, when it requires a non-party to travel more than 100 miles between a

court and their place of employment or if traveling presents an undue burden.1

 The Court, however,

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 402 Filed 02/28/08 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

2 Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii) states:

(B) To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court

may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: ....

(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur

substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(iii).

3 Rule 45(c)(3)(C) states:

Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule

45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order

appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:

(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be

otherwise met without undue hardship; and

(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(C).

4 Its only argument is if the subpoena is void on all other grounds of distance, overbroadness, and

privilege, then it is an undue burden to respond to it. As the subpoena is none of these, it is thus not

overbroad.

5 If this is the case, it is unclear on what grounds the CDCR may object to subpoena commanding

his appearance at trial.

3

may overcome a 100-mile barrier, but not an undue burden, by commanding a non-party to travel to

appear at trial, from anywhere within the same state as the trial, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii). 

Id. rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). This rule provides the Court may, on a timely motion, quash or

modify a subpoena if a non-party will incur “substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to

attend trial.”2

 Id. rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). Under such circumstances, a court may alternatively, order

the person appear if (1) the serving party “shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that

cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship[,]” id. rule 45(c)(3)(C)(i); and (2) ensures the nonparty will be reasonably compensated[,]” id. rule 45(c)(3)(C)(ii).3

The CDCR does not effectively argue any undue burden,4 so the issue is the distance. In this

case, plaintiff’s counsel claims, the SVSP is only 105 miles from the Court, and within California. 

The CDCR does not argue McCall will incur a substantial expense to come to court. In fact, he

previously traveled further, to San Francisco, to testify in Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s

courtroom. He also signed and returned an agreement to testify on reasonable notice,5 which

counsel agreed to

///

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 402 Filed 02/28/08 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

6 Under Rule 17(c), a subpoena must seek relevant and admissible evidence, and not be used for

a fishing expedition. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700. In contrast, a civil subpoena may be used to seek

admissible evidence or evidence which appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

4

provide in advance. And, counsel already paid him $170.29 for mileage and one day’s testimony,

under Rule 45(b)(1). The Court concludes McCall should appear.

III. The subpoena is not overbroad.

The CDCR argues the subpoena is overbroad, in violation of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iv). 

Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iv) states, “On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena

that: [¶] ... [¶] (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv). The CDCR

claims the request has no time limit nor identifies any specific documents. The CDCR also claims

the evidence sought lacks relevancy, admissibility, and is not specifically identified, in violation of

U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). 

The Court notes the request states no time limit or identifies any specific document by name. 

The request, however, only asks for investigative files for certain individuals. It is unclear why the

subpoena need provide a time limit or any further refinement, and the CDCR provides no legal

argument in this regard. As for the Nixon argument, Nixon dealt with the standard for analyzing

requests for a subpoena under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), which uses a higher burden

and a narrower standard than that used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.6

 Thus, Nixon is

inapposite here. The Court thus concludes the subpoena is not overbroad.

IV. The Eleventh Amendment

The CDCR argues the Eleventh Amendment bars the Court from issuing a subpoena

controlling on McCall, a state employee. Magistrate Judge Zimmerman already considered and

rejected this argument. See Docket No. 149 at 1:26-2:2 (citing Docket No. 114 at 2:16-17, citing

Jones v. Tozzi, No. CV-F-05-148 OWW/DLB, slip op., 2007 WL 1299795, *1-*4 (E.D. Cal.

Apr. 30, 2007) (finding the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal subpoenas to non-party states,

as it does not put them at risk of paying a judgment for monetary damages, as an actual suit against

the state might))). The Court concludes the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the subpoena.

///

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 402 Filed 02/28/08 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

5

///

V. Privileges and Privacy

The CDCR raises a number of state and federal privileges and claims the disclosure of the

requested records would violate guards’ or inmates’ privacy rights. In making this argument, the

CDCR repeats the exact same arguments it made in Docket numbers 119 and 120. The Court notes

Magistrate Judge Zimmerman already considered these arguments and rejected the ones addressing

privilege, in his Order dated October 26, 2007. See Docket No. 149 at 2:13-3:17. He also rejected

them, in part, in his Order dated July 12, 2007. See Docket No. 114. As for any privacy concerns,

Magistrate Judge Zimmerman addressed them with his attorneys’-eyes-only order. [Docket

No. 116.] The Court thus concludes it should overrule these objections.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation’s Response and Objections to Subpoena of Lieutenant James McCall [Docket

No. 370] and GRANTS plaintiff Michael A. Todd.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents

and Live Testimony of James McCall [Docket No. 396]. 

Further, McCall is ordered to comply with plaintiff’s February 8, 2008 subpoena as follows: 

(1) he shall appear and testify at trial as commanded by this subpoena, subject to the terms of any

agreement to testify on reasonable notice; and (2) he shall produce the documents requested by this

subpoena, in this Court, by 8:30 a.m., on February 28, 2008; and (3) this subpoena is modified to

command production on this date and at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 27, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 402 Filed 02/28/08 Page 5 of 5