Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01802/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01802-6/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 Garrick Harrington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and/or 

motion for a protective order, filed December 10, 2014. (ECF No. 48.) Defendant Bautista filed an 

opposition on December 26, 2014. (ECF No. 49.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Subpoena duces tecum are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 which allows for 

the production of documents from persons who are not parties to the action. Further, a subpoena 

duces tecum is limited to seeking relevant evidence as set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

26(b). Heilman v. Lyons, No. 2:09-cv-02721 KJN P, 2010 WL 5168871, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 

GARRICK HARRINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. BAUTISTA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01802-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND/OR ORDER OF 

PROTECTION

[ECF No. 48]

Case 1:10-cv-01802-LJO-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 5
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

2010). Rule 26 allows parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party’s claim or defense.... Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(1). “Generally, the purpose of discovery is to remove surprise from trial preparation so the 

parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” Oakes v. Halvorsen 

Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C. D. Cal. 1998). To achieve this purpose Rule 26(b) is liberally 

interpreted to allow broad discovery “of all information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence.” Jones v. Commander, Kansas Army Ammunitions Plan, Dept. of Army, 147 

F.R.D. 248, 250 (D. Kan. 1993); Oakes, 179 F.R.D. at 283. Discovery requests are relevant if there is 

any possibility that the information sought could be relevant to the subject matter of the action. Id. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), where there is good cause, a protective order 

should be granted to protect a party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 

expense.” 

B. Allegations of Complaint

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff that on the morning of September 26, 2008, he was 

transported by Defendants Bautista and Blaylock to a medical appointment at the California Pain 

Institute in Bakersfield, California. Plaintiff was transported by in the rear compartment of the 

transportation van. Plaintiff did not see a seat belt in the van, nor was he offered one by Defendant 

Bautista or Blaylock. 

After Plaintiff’s medical appointment, Plaintiff was placed back into the rear compartment of 

the transport van. Defendant Bautista placed Plaintiff’s legs into shackles, and Plaintiff was not 

offered a seat belt and Defendant Bautista did not place Plaintiff in a seat belt. 

During the trip back to Corcoran State Prison, Defendant Bautista entered the freeway on-ramp 

at a “high rate of acceleration while making a right turn.” At that point, Plaintiff was thrown into the 

air and slammed the left side of his head against the solid steel base of the opposite side bench seat in 

the rear compartment of the van. 

Plaintiff was laying on the floor of the van in pain and was bleeding from the area of his head 

that had been hit. Plaintiff yelled “man down” in an attempt to get the attention of Defendants 

Case 1:10-cv-01802-LJO-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/23/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Bautista and Blaylock. Defendants Bautista and Blaylock stopped the van and opened the rear door. 

Plaintiff was laying face down blood coming out of the wound on the left-front side of his head. 

Defendants Bautista and Blaylock asked Plaintiff if he was okay, to which he replied no. Defendant 

Bautista picked Plaintiff up and sat him on a bench seat in the rear compartment of the van. Defendant 

Bautista reached down between the seats and retrieved a seat belt that had not been visible prior to that 

time. Defendant Bautista secured Plaintiff in the seat and Defendant Blaylock dampened a napkin 

with melted ice, retrieved from her lunch, and gave it to Plaintiff. There was no first aid kit in the van, 

so Blaylock gave Plaintiff a napkin to wipe the blood from his face. Bautista called a sergeant to 

discuss what happened and was instructed to continue on to the prison. 

After traveling for approximately two minutes, the van was again stopped. Defendants 

Bautista and Blaylock opened the rear compartment again and moved Plaintiff to the middle 

compartment of the van. Bautista placed Plaintiff into a seatbelt, and they returned to the prison where 

Plaintiff was taken to the prison’s hospital. Plaintiff had a one and a half inch gash on his head which 

was sutured and a full set of x-rays of his skull was ordered. Plaintiff claims to have suffered from 

double vision and severe headaches for weeks following the incident. A nurse informed Plaintiff that 

he suffered a concussion and believed he was suffering from post-concussion issues. Plaintiff 

continues to have problems with vision in his left eye and he has been under the continuing care of an 

eye doctor. 

C. Analysis

On October 17, 2014, counsel for Defendant Bautista sent a letter to Plaintiff asking him to 

review and sign a medical authorization form and return it by October 30, 2014. Plaintiff was 

informed that, if he signed the authorization, Bautista would provide him with copies of his medical 

records at no cost. Plaintiff was also informed that if he did not sign and return the form, Bautista 

would have to subpoena the medical records and would not provide copies. Plaintiff did not return the 

authorization form, so Bautista subpoenaed his medical records. 

On November 24, 2014, counsel for Bautista was informed by staff at Plaintiff’s place of 

incarceration that they only had access to Plaintiff’s medical records from September 25, 2008, to the 

present. Counsel for Bautista asked the prison staff to forward the medical records since September 

Case 1:10-cv-01802-LJO-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/23/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

25, 2008, to the present. Counsel received those records on December 2, 2014. To date, no records 

from prior to September 25, 2008, have been obtained. 

Plaintiff argues that the subpoena duces tecum as to his medical records is overly broad and 

seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims proceeding in this action. Plaintiff thus seeks to 

quash the subpoena of his medical records by Defendant Bautista and/or for a protective order. 

Defendant Bautista opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that Plaintiff’s medical records 

are highly relevant to this action and the Plaintiff has failed to show good cause to quash the subpoena 

or for the issuance of a protective order. 

Defendant Bautista correctly indicates that Plaintiff’s claims he suffered a gash on his head, 

underwent x-rays, was told he suffered a concussion, suffered from headaches and double vision for a 

significant amount of time after the events of this lawsuit, and claims to still be suffering from vision 

problems related to these events. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, his medical records are relevant to 

Plaintiff’s claims of injuries and are therefore discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

While there may be some instances in which a blanket request for all medical records may be 

overbroad, such is not the case in this instance. Defendant correctly points out that Plaintiff is not 

claiming one injury that was treated and resolved on one day, “tidily confined to one medical record.” 

Rather, Plaintiff is alleging a host of injuries and complications from the treatment of those injuries 

extending over a period of many years and continuing to the present. Defendant Bautista has not 

received any medical records dated prior to September 25, 2008-one day prior to the events that gave 

rise to this lawsuit.1 Furthermore, counsel for Bautista indicates that he has not actually obtained any 

medical records that do not appear to be relevant to this case at this time, such as dental and mental 

health records. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena or for the issuance of a 

protective order must be denied. 

///

///

///

 

1

If such medical records are received by Defendant Bautista, the Court will upon proper filing consider the relevancy of 

such documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. 

Case 1:10-cv-01802-LJO-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/23/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena and/or for a 

protective order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01802-LJO-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/23/15 Page 5 of 5