Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00654/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00654-5/pdf.json

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

---

1

17CV654 JLS (BGS)

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

GAVIN B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 

MR. LEONARD TRINH,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17CV654 JLS (BGS)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RULE 45 SUBPOENA / REQUEST 

FOR RELIEF VIA DECLARATORY 

DECREE

[ECF No. 42]

Plaintiff Gavin B. Davis has filed a request for a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

45 subpoena / request for relief via declaratory decree. [ECF 42] He seeks issuance of a 

“broad subpoena of all communications between any of the Defendants . . . and the Clark 

County District Attorney’s Office.” (Id. at 14, Section C, Request for Relief.) 

“[S]upoenas under Rule 45 are discovery, and must be utilized within the time 

period permitted for discovery in a case.” See Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. V. Merck 

KGaA, 190 F.R.D. 556, 561 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (collecting cases). As the Court explained 

in its July 14, 2017 Order denying issuance of a subpoena on a different issue, the Court 

has not issued a case management order allowing discovery to commence because the 

case is still at the motion to dismiss stage and the pleadings are not settled. (ECF 35.) A 

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint has recently been granted. 

Case 3:17-cv-00654-JLS-BGS Document 67 Filed 03/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17CV654 JLS (BGS)

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

(ECF 66.) If this case survives the motion to dismiss stage, the Court will set a Case 

Management Conference and, after consulting with counsel for Defendants and Plaintiff, 

issue an appropriate scheduling order governing, among other matters, appropriate 

discovery. 

 Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00654-JLS-BGS Document 67 Filed 03/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2