Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03823/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03823-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

Case No. 14-cv-03823 NC 

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REFUGIO NIETO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03823 NC 

ORDER NOTIFYING PARTIES OF 

RECEIPT OF DOCUMENTS IN 

RESPONSE TO TRIAL SUBPOENA

The Court has received two sets of documents responsive to trial subpoenas issued 

by Defendants. Both documents are from UCSF Medical center, and contain medical 

records and billing information regarding Nieto during the year 2013. 

Trial subpoenas are subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and invoke 

the authority of the court to obtain the pretrial production of documents. Trial subpoenas 

are “discovery within the definition of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(5) and are therefore subject to 

the time constraints that apply to all other methods of formal discovery.” Integra 

Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 190 F.R.D. 556, 561 (S.D. Cal. 1999).

Here, Defendants stated reason for their use of trial subpoenas was that they did not 

know the information during discovery, and therefore had to request the information later. 

In Puritan Inv. Corp. v. ASLL Corp., 1997 WL 793569 (E.D. Pa. 1997), the court held that 

a party could not use a trial subpoena to secure production of documents at trial when the

party could not show that the information sought was unknown during discovery. Instead, 

Case 3:14-cv-03823-NC Document 118 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 14-cv-03823 NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

trial subpoenas have been permitted for narrow reasons such as “to secure an original 

document, copies of which were obtained during discovery, where there is an objection 

regarding authenticity of the document for admission at trial.” Integra Lifesciences I, 190 

F.R.D. at 562. Defendants have not established the need for trial subpoenas to get 

information about Nieto’s 2013 medical records when they were able to and did produce 

other medical records from that year during normal discovery.

Moreover, the Court’s pretrial order at docket 117 has already excluded medical

documents from 2013 under relevance requirements. Therefore, the Court’s tentative 

ruling is to exclude the recently received documents on the same grounds. Defendants 

have until February 17, 2016, to argue for inclusion of the documents if they wish to do so. 

Plaintiffs may respond by February 24, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03823-NC Document 118 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 2