Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARLENE SMITH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06066-OWW-LJO-P

ORDERFOLLOWINGTELEPHONICHEARING

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

(Docs. 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, and 55) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY

DEADLINE

(Doc. 57)

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“plaintiff”)is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendant Earlene Smith (“defendant”)

for discriminating against plaintiff, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Between March 27,

2006, and April 28, 2006, plaintiff filed ten motions for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum and

ad testificandum, and on May 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of the discovery

deadline. (Docs. 41, 44-45, 48-50, 52-53, 54-55, and 57.) Defendant did not file a response to the

motions.

On June 23, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., the Court held a telephonic hearing to address plaintiff’s

pending motions. As clarified by plaintiff during the hearing, plaintiff seeks the declarations of ten

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 67 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 The depositions do not have to occur within forty-five days. However, the depositions must be scheduled,

via issuance of a deposition notice, within forty-five days.

2

non-party witnesses. Following receipt of the declarations and dependent upon the content of the

declarations, plaintiff intends to consider deposing one or more witnesses, preferably by telephone.

As discussed during the hearing, there is no authority for the proposition that the Court can

issue an order requiring a non-party witness to provide a declaration to plaintiff. Therefore,

plaintiff’s motions for a court order requiring non-party witnesses to provide him with declarations

must be denied. Plaintiff may contact the non-party witnesses and request declarations if he wishes.

Regarding depositions, plaintiff did not represent that he is able is bear the full cost of a

deposition, which would include arranging for and compensating a court reporter, and paying for a

transcript of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. To the extent that plaintiff is willing and able to bear

the full cost of a deposition, plaintiff is not precluded from deposing non-party witnesses. However,

a schedule for any such depositions must set within forty-five days from the date of service of this

order.1 

In addition, plaintiff is interested in seeking the production of documents from non-party

witnesses. As discussed during the hearing, a written request for the issuance of a subpoena duces

tecum requires that plaintiff specify exactly which documents he is seeking. The request must be

specific enough to determine what plaintiff seeks. The request cannot be a broadly stated request

that amounts to a fishing expedition. The motions for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum shall

be denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff may submit a written request seeking the issuance of

subpoenas duces tecum and the Court will consider it. The request must be submitted within twenty

days from the date of service of this order and must articulate which documents are sought from

which non-party witnesses.

Concerning plaintiff’s request for an extension of the discovery deadline so that he may serve

defendant with a request for the production of documents, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)

requires that good cause be shown. As conceded by plaintiff during the hearing, plaintiff’s status

as a layman unfamiliar with the intricacies of discovery is the reason he did not serve the request

during the discovery phase of this litigation. Discovery was opened on September 28, 2005, and the

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 67 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

deadline for completion of discovery was May 30, 2006, which provided the parties with

approximately eight months to conduct discovery. Because there has been no showing of diligence

in complying with the deadline, there is no good cause for modifying the scheduling order. Zivkovic

v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s motion to

extend the discovery deadline to serve a request for the production of documents on defendant shall

therefore be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for the issuance of an order requiring non-party witnesses to

provide him with declarations and for the issuance of subpoenas are DENIED

(documents 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, and 55); 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline is DENIED (document

57); 

3. If plaintiff wishes to depose non-party witnesses, the deposition notices must be

issued by plaintiff within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order;

and

4. If plaintiff wishes to renew his motion for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum,

he must do so within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 67 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 3