Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01872/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01872-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUANE LEE OAKES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1872-JAH (MDD)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA.

[Doc. No. 82]

vs.

DR. PETERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena served by

Defendants on November 21, 2011. (Doc. No. 82). Plaintiff contends that Defendants are seeking

disclosure of Plaintiff's mental health records, other confidential files, and Plaintiff’s disciplinary

records. Id. Plaintiff asserts that these requests are irrelevant and prejudicial. Id. Plaintiff makes

no objection to the sections of Defendants’ subpoena requesting his other medical records or

requesting audio/visual evidence taken during or following the incidents at issue. Id.

On January 17, 2012, Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. No. 85). In

their Response, Defendants offer to modify the subpoena to exclude Plaintiff’s mental health

records and confidential files, but maintain their request for Plaintiff’s disciplinary files. Id. As

Defendants have agreed to withdraw their requests regarding Plaintiff’s mental health and

confidential files, the Court need not address those here. The only remaining question is whether

Defendants’ request for Plaintiff’s disciplinary files is proper. 

/ / /

- 1 - 07cv1872-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:07-cv-01872-JAH-MDD Document 87 Filed 01/19/12 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

 Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s disciplinary files are relevant and will likely lead to

admissible evidence at trial. Id. at 2. Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claims are based in large

part on Plaintiff’s prior interactions with prison staff and on injuries incurred while incarcerated,

and that the disciplinary file is “the best source of information regarding [Plaintiff’s] interactions

with staff members and other inmates. Plaintiff’s disciplinary files will provide detailed

descriptions of physical disputes he has had with other prisoners[.]” Id. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing

parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good cause, the court may order

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. Relevant

information for discovery purposes includes any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. 

There is no requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. 

Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably lead to matter that

could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy

for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Here, Plaintiff’s disciplinary records are relevant, as they may contain information that

bears on the origin of Plaintiff’s injuries and Plaintiff’s interactions with prison medical staff and

guards. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, though 

Defendants’ are required to modify their subpoena as detailed above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 19, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 07cv1872-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:07-cv-01872-JAH-MDD Document 87 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 2