Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00016-16/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Bob Bejarano is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceedings against Defendants Allison, Goss, Hernandez, and Perez for 

subjecting Plaintiff to conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on October 31, 2014. (ECF No. 55.) On 

November 4, 2014, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 56.) Pursuant to 

the scheduling order, the deadline for completion of discovery is July 4, 2015. (Id.) 

On May 4, 2015, and June 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed motions for issuance of subpoena duces 

tecum.1 (ECF Nos. 61, 62.) As just stated, this case is currently in the discovery phase and the 

deadline for completion of all discovery is set for July 4, 2015. Subject to certain requirements, 

 

1

Because Plaintiff lacks entitlement to the subpoena duces tecum and there is no prejudice to Defendants, the Court elects 

to resolve the motion without waiting for Defendants to file a response. Local Rule 230(l). 

BOB BEJARANO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00016-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF Nos. 61, 62]

Case 1:11-cv-00016-DAD-SAB Document 64 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of documents, 

electronically stored information, and/or tangible things from a nonparty, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to 

service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, the Court will 

consider granting such a request only if the documents or items sought from the nonparty are not 

equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a request for production 

of documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If 

Defendants object to Plaintiff’s discovery request, a motion to compel is the next required step. If the 

Court rules that the documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things are 

discoverable but Defendants do not have care, custody, and control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a 

subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(a)(1). Alternatively, if the Court rules that the documents or 

items are not discoverable, the inquiry ends. Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b).

In this instance, Plaintiff does not indicate what information is sought by way of subpoena 

duces tecum or that the information was sought from Defendants through a request for production of 

documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things, and, if he has done so, he has not 

filed a motion to compel the production. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions for the issuance of subpoena 

duces tecum is HEREBY DENIED as premature, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00016-DAD-SAB Document 64 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2