Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03299/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03299-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff also suggests that sanctions should be awarded against Defendant, but has not submitted a

separate sanctions motion according to Civil L.R. 37-3. In any event, the court would not be inclined to award

sanctions here.

*E-filed 6/27/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMAR EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PROBATION

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. /

Case No. C06-03299 RMW

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Docket Nos. 44, 45

Pro se plaintiff Jamar Evans, proceeding in forma pauperis, brought suit for alleged

violation of his civil rights. He claims that the Santa Clara County Probation Department used

excessive force and instituted proceedings against him for an improper purpose. Plaintiff

moves to compel a response to his subpoena request, which seeks any transcripts from an April

2007 hearing in the Superior Court of California pertaining to Evans' "Petition for Modification

of Terms of Probation." 1

These parties are currently involved in another case that began in 2003. When this

subpoena request was served on Defendant, it was included with discovery requests on the 2003

case. (See, Fligor Decl. ¶ 2). Further, the case number on the subpoena was incorrectly

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 52 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Even if the motion were not moot, there are several bases upon which denial would be appropriate. 

For example, Defendant's delay in responding appears substantially justified given the confusion caused by the

erroneous case number on the subpoena and the associated discovery requests in the 2003 case. Further,

Plaintiff suffered no prejudice as a result of that delay. 

2

labeled, beginning with "03" instead of "06". (Id., Also see, Reply Brief Attachments). 

Defendant therefore believed (incorrectly) that the subpoena pertained to the 2003 case. Its

response was an objection within the context of that case. (Fligor Decl. ¶ 3-4). Plaintiff filed

this motion to compel after the deadline for responding to the subpoena passed. Only after

Plaintiff filed his motion did Defendant realize that the subpoena was for this case (i.e., the

2006 action). At that time, Defendant asked Plaintiff to withdraw his motion and agreed to

respond shortly thereafter. (Id. at ¶ 7). Plaintiff proceeded with the motion. 

Defense counsel attests that Defendant responded to the subpoena on May 25, 2007. 

(See, Fligor Decl., ¶ 8). Plaintiff has offered no information to the contrary. Accordingly,

Plaintiff's May 2, 2007 motion to compel is DENIED as MOOT.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/27/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 52 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Neysa A. Fligor neysa.fligor@cco.sccgov.org 

Jamar Evans

Post Office Box 25

Atwater, CA 95301

Dated: 6/27/07 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 52 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 3