Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01923/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01923-13/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY CECIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1923 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel. Plaintiff 

has submitted two subpoenas to produce documents, information, or objects or to permit 

inspection of premises, directed to the California Board of Registered Nursing and the California 

Medical Board. Plaintiff seeks documents and information regarding the licensing of Leslie R. 

Schmidt, and whether there are any past disciplinary proceedings against Leslie R. Schmidt. 

Proper reliance on a subpoena duces tecum is limited by the relevance standards set forth in 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) (“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense”), and considerations of burden and expense set 

forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)1 and 45(c)(1). In addition, this court has required that a 

motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum be supported by: (1) clear identification of the documents 

sought and from whom, and (2) a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified third 

////

Case 2:13-cv-01923-TLN-KJN Document 83 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 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

2

party. See e.g. Davis v. Ramen, 2010 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Williams v. Adams, 2010 WL 

148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

Plaintiff’s proposed subpoenas are inadequate for several reasons. First, the document requests 

are not sufficiently specific. Second, if the “Leslie Schmidt” for whom plaintiff seeks documents is the 

same as defendant Schmidt, plaintiff may obtain the information sought by using the regular discovery 

process. For example, plaintiff may propound interrogatories or a request for production of documents to 

defendant Schmidt. Third, licensing information for health care professionals in California is provided on 

the internet at no charge. Department of Consumer Affairs, BREEZE, https://www.breeze.ca.gov. 

This website also reflects public record actions for the licensee, such as administrative 

disciplinary actions and court orders. For example, see defendants’ Exhibits B and C submitted 

in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for Rule 35 examination. (ECF No. 7 7at 66-70.) 

If the “Leslie Schmidt” is not the same person as defendant Schmidt, plaintiff fails to explain the 

relevance of the documents sought. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the subpoenas (ECF No. 66 at 3-8) shall be 

placed in the court file and disregarded.

Dated: September 26, 2014

/ceci1923.sdt

Case 2:13-cv-01923-TLN-KJN Document 83 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 2