Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00551-9/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TED DARNELL DANIELS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0551 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 

action. By order filed April 22, 2020, and at plaintiff’s request, the deadlines were extended in 

this case for a period of ninety days. ECF No. 49. The discovery deadline was extended from 

May 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020, and the dispositive motion was extended from July 31, 2020 to 

October 30, 2020. Id. Prior to the filing of that order, plaintiff prepared and filed two discovery 

related motions. The first is a general request for the issuance of three blank subpoena forms. 

ECF No. 50. The second is a motion to compel discovery from sole defendant Lotersztain. ECF 

No. 51. 

 In light of the extended deadlines in this case, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery will 

be denied without prejudice to its later renewal if necessary. The court grants plaintiff’s request 

for issuance of the three requested blank subpoena forms, and informs plaintiff of the showing he 

must make when he returns the completed forms to the court in order to obtain the assistance of 

the United States Marshal in serving the subpoenas. 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 4
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 

A subpoena duces tecum, served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2), 

directs a nonparty to an action to produce documents or other tangible objects for inspection. 

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is entitled to obtain personal service of an 

authorized subpoena duces tecum by the United States Marshal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). A 

subpoena must be personally served or it is null and void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c); Gillam v. A. 

Shyman, Inc., 22 F.R.D. 475 (D. Alaska 1958). 

 This court must consider the following matters before approving service of a proposed 

subpoena duces tecum. A subpoena must comply with the relevance standards set forth in 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) (“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs 

of the case”), and considerations of burden and expense set forth in Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) and 45(d). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to 

burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a 

subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (requiring 

indigent plaintiff to demonstrate that he had “made provision for the costs of such discovery”) 

(citing Cantaline v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 103 F.R.D. 447, 450 (S.D. Fla. 1984)); see also 

United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982) (court may 

award costs of compliance with subpoena to non-party). Non-parties are “entitled to have the 

benefit of this Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. Badman, 139 F.R.D. at 605. 

Additionally, courts in this district require that a motion requesting service of a subpoena 

duces tecum be supported by: (1) clear identification of the documents sought and from whom, 

and (2) a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party. See e.g. 

Davis v. Ramen, 2010 WL 1948560, *1 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115432 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (Oberto, 

M.J.); Williams v. Adams, 2010 WL 148703, *1 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10248 (E.D. Cal. 2010) 

(Snyder, M.J.). 

The person to whom the subpoena is directed must be clearly and readily identifiable, with 

an accurate physical address to enable personal service of the subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(a)(1)(A)(iii). 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 4
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 

Finally, pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2), a subpoena duces tecum commands the recipient to 

“produce” documents. Plaintiff is advised that he may be provided access to review documents 

but that if he wishes to have copies of the documents, he may be required to arrange they be 

photocopied at his own expense. 

 Subject to these considerations, the Clerk of Court will send plaintiff three blank subpoena 

forms for his completion and submission to the court. To obtain service of the subpoenas by the 

United States Marshal, plaintiff must complete the forms and submit them to the court with a 

motion demonstrating entitlement to such service. The motion should address the factors 

identified above. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of three blank subpoena forms, ECF No. 50, is 

granted. 

 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff, together with a copy of this order, three 

subpoena duces tecum forms, signed but otherwise blank, pursuant to Rule 45, Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

 3. Within thirty (30) days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the 

proposed subpoena duces tecum forms, and return these documents to the court with the attached 

Notice of Submission, together with a motion requesting service of the proposed subpoenas by 

the United States Marshal. 

 4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 51, is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: April 29, 2020 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 4
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TED DARNELL DANIELS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0551 MCE AC P 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION 

 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order filed 

_____________________: 

 ____ Completed subpoena duces tecum summons forms (proposed) 

 ____ Support motion requesting service of subpoenas by United States Marshal 

____________________________________ ____________________________________ 

Date Plaintiff 

Case 2:16-cv-00551-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 4