Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

16CV689 WQH (JMA) 

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 

DOYLE WAYNE DAVIS, CDCR 

#34318, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: 16CV689 WQH (JMA) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA AS 

MOOT [ECF No. 111] 

On December 27, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part 

Plaintiff’s motion for an order to issue subpoenas duces tecum. (ECF No. 95.) 

The Court directed the Clerk of Court to issue six (6) signed, but otherwise blank, 

subpoena duces tecum forms and to send six (6) U.S. Marshal Forms 285 in 

order to permit Plaintiff to subpoena medical records from the following medical 

providers: (1) Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center; (2) Alvarado Medical Center 

(“Alvarado”); (3) Tri-City Medical Center (“Tri-City”); (4) Oscar A. Matthews, M.D. 

at Tri-City Medical Center (“Dr. Matthews”); (5) Mohammad Pashmforoush, M.D. 

at Tri-City Medical Center and (6) Mohammad Pashmforoush, M.D. (collectively 

“Dr. Pashmforoush”). (Id.) The Court ordered that although Plaintiff, proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis, was entitled to have the U.S. Marshal effect 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 118 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16CV689 WQH (JMA) 

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

service of the subpoenas (see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)), Plaintiff was not entitled to a 

waiver of any fees or expenses required by the subpoena recipients to comply 

with the subpoenas duces tecum. (Id.) 

On March 7, 2018 nunc pro tunc March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

compel compliance with subpoenas duces tecum, in which he advised that only 

Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center had provided records in response to his 

subpoenas. (ECF No. 111.) On March 12, 2018, the Court issued an order 

setting a briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 112.) Nonparty Dr. 

Pashmforoush filed a response to the motion. (ECF No. 113.) The other medical 

providers (Alvarado, Tri-City, and Dr. Matthews) did not file responses. During a 

Case Management Conference held on March 29, 2018, Plaintiff advised that he 

had received records from Alvarado in response to his subpoena after filing his 

motion to compel compliance. 

The Court finds as follows: 

1. Mohammad Pashmforoush, M.D. 

 Dr. Pashmforoush produced records in response to Plaintiff’s subpoena 

subsequent to the filing of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. See Pashmforoush 

Resp., ECF No. 113 at 3; Arnold Decl., ECF No. 113-1, ¶ 4. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance as to Dr. Pashmforoush is DENIED as 

moot. The Court declines to find Dr. Pashmforoush in contempt and declines to 

issue any sanctions against him or his counsel. 

2. Tri-City Medical Center, and Oscar A. Matthews, M.D. 

 In considering the instant motion, it came to the Court’s attention that 

although its March 12, 2018 briefing order was intended to be provided to TriCity, Dr. Matthews, and Alvarado, due to clerical error, it was not. As such, none 

of these providers received the order and thus none filed a response to the 

motion. It also came to the Court’s attention, while confirming the addresses 

upon which to send a revised briefing order, that the addresses provided by 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 118 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16CV689 WQH (JMA) 

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

Plaintiff on his Form 285 forms as to Tri-City and Dr. Matthews, were incorrect. 

Plaintiff’s subpoena issued to Tri-City was served upon Vicki Ogilvie with the Risk 

Management Department, at 4002 Vista Way, Suite 301 in Oceanside, California, 

the address provided by Plaintiff, rather than upon the correct location, the 

Medical Records Department located at 4002 Vista Way in Oceanside, 

California. Plaintiff also listed 4002 Vista Way, Suite 301 as the address upon 

which to serve Dr. Matthews; service was instead effectuated at 2095 W. Vista 

Way in Vista, California. (ECF No. 106.) It is incumbent upon the party serving a 

subpoena to complete the subpoena correctly before service. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 45(a)(3); Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (providing that 

the plaintiff must provide the necessary information to effectuate service when 

relying on the Marshal for service). 

 Notwithstanding that Plaintiff did not provide the correct address upon 

which to serve the custodian of records at Tri-City, the Court was informed by TriCity’s General Counsel, on behalf of its Medical Records Department, that 

Plaintiff’s subpoena had been located and that medical records responsive to 

Plaintiff’s subpoena will be provided forthwith. Tri-City also informed that records 

relating to Plaintiff’s treatment with Dr. Matthews would be included in its 

production. 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance as to Tri-City and Dr. 

Matthews is DENIED as moot. 

3. Alvarado Medical Center 

 Plaintiff has advised that Alvarado has produced records in response to the 

subpoena. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance as to Alvarado is 

DENIED as moot. 

4. Conclusion 

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with 

subpoena is DENIED as moot. 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 118 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16CV689 WQH (JMA) 

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

 Plaintiff is reminded that, as discussed during the Case Management 

Conference held on March 29, 2018, copies of any documents he receives via 

subpoena must be provided to Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 13, 2018 

cc: 

Jennifer Arnold 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

P.O. Box 85266 

San Diego, CA 92186-5266 

jennifer.arnold@doj.ca.gov

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 118 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4