Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01677/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01677-9/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL KLEIN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

B. MONTOYA, ET AL.

 Defendants.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-01677-LJO-BMK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES 

TECUM (DOC. 42)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (DOC. 42)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Klein’s Motion for Subpoena 

Duces Tecum (Doc. 42). After careful consideration of the Motion and the 

supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court DENIES this Motion. 

On April 26, 2015, Plaintiff sent to Defendants a Request for 

Production of Documents. (Exhibit 2 at 4-5, attached to Motion.) Plaintiff states

that he never received a response to his production request and now asks the Court to 

issue a subpoena duces tecum for the documents. (See Motion at 2 (stating “no 

response has been provided” as of the date of the Motion); Exhibit 1 attached to 

Motion (stating that no response had been provided as of June 11, 2015).) 

According to Defendants, however, they did respond to Plaintiff’s document request 

on June 4, 2016: “Defendants have already provided all non-privileged documents 

Case 1:13-cv-01677-LJO-BMK Document 55 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 3
2

responsive to Plaintiff’s requests, and Defendants served a privilege log with their 

responses identifying the relevant privileged documents Plaintiff requested.” (Opp. 

at 2.) Plaintiff even attached Defendant’s response to the present Motion. (See

Exhibit 4 attached to Motion.) 

“Subpoenas are not the proper method by which to seek information 

from an opposing party.” Slama v. City of Madera, No. 1:08-cv-00810 AWI-SKO, 

2011 WL 6100511, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011). Instead, “a subpoena duces 

tecum is an instrument to order non-parties to provide discovery documents.” 

Haney v. Adams, No. 1:07-cv-01104 OWW-GBC (PC), 2011 WL 3678142, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011). Where one party seeks to discover documents from 

another party, a request for discovery must be made pursuant to Rule 34 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34; Singleton v. Jupiter 

Communities, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-0256 JAD-PAL, 2014 WL 251659, at *3 (D. Nev.

Jan. 22, 2014) (“The documents Plaintiff seeks are clearly Defendant’s documents, 

not those of the non party witness, and Rule 45 is not the proper procedure to seek 

discovery more appropriately subject to a Rule 34 request.”). Consequently, 

Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena duces tecum against Defendants is improper. 

Even if this Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion to compel 

discovery, Rule 37(a)(1) requires that such motions “include a certification that the 

Case 1:13-cv-01677-LJO-BMK Document 55 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 3
3

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party 

failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” 

Similarly, Local Rule 251(b) also states that a motion to compel discovery “shall not 

be heard unless . . . the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their 

differences.” Insofar as Plaintiff has not complied with the certification 

requirement of Rule 37(a)(1) and did not confer with defense counsel as required 

under Local Rule 251, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 

469, 477 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (“A court can deny a motion to compel solely because of a 

party’s failure to meet and confer prior to filing the motion.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 42).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 5, 2016

Michael Klein v. B. Montoya, et al., 1:13-cv-01677 LJO-BMK; ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (DOC. 42).

 /S/ Barry M. Kurren 

Barry M. Kurren

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:13-cv-01677-LJO-BMK Document 55 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 3