Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00272-20/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

DENNIS L. HAMILTON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JOHN HART, et al.

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG

(PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S 

REQUESTS FOR ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENA

(ECF Nos. 89, 94.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dennis Hamilton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is currently proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Hart, Castro, Llamas, Prouty, Phillips, Ronquillo, 

Bogle, Trupe, and Ocampo for various claims arising out of the use of pepper spray against 

Plaintiff while he was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. 

On November 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed two requests for the issuance of subpoenas against 

a non-party commanding the production of Liz Freedman, a broadcast journalist for NBC 

News, and a videotape of a television episode produced by NBC News. (ECF No. 89.) Because 

of a delay in the mail, Plaintiff filed the same two requests again on November 8, 2016. (ECF 

No. 94.) Defendants have not objected to either of Plaintiff’s subpoena requests.

\\\

Case 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Document 102 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 4
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

II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS

“A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or 

tangible things requires the responding person to permit inspection, copying, testing, or 

sampling of the materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(D). A subpoena can also compel a nonparty to testify in a deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). “If the subpoena commands the 

production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection 

of premises before trial, then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice 

and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). Under 

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any 

non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

“Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

Plaintiff’s first request asks that NBCNews.com be compelled to produce “reporter Liz 

Freedman” to “make a statement or be called for questioning about the incident.” (ECF No. 

94.) Under Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may take a non-party’s 

deposition without leave of court. The non-party’s “attendance may be compelled by subpoena 

under Rule 45.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Under Rule 45, however, a subpoena commanding 

attendance at a deposition “must state the method of recording the testimony” and must “tender 

the fees for 1 day’s attendance and the mileage allowed by law.” Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

status “does not entitle him to waiver of witness fees, mileage or deposition officer fees.” 

Jackson v. Woodford, Case No. 05-cv-0513-L(NLS), 2007 WL 2580566, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 

17, 2007), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff has not tendered the required fees or indicated a method for the recording of 

Freedman’s testimony, nor does it appear that he is capable of doing so. Plaintiff’s first request 

must thus be denied.

Plaintiff’s second request is also directed at NBCNews.com and asks for “an unedited 

copy of the Kern Valley State Prison Lock Up episode where Dennis Hamilton appeared.” 

(ECF No. 94.) The request does not explain the relevance of this video, although Plaintiff has 

Case 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Document 102 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 4
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

explained that he believes the episode contains an interview of him as well as footage of him in 

a cell after he had been pepper sprayed. Plaintiff has attempted to obtain this video from 

Defendants, but they have explained that it is not in their possession (and, in fact, they had been 

previously unaware of any such video). It is unclear whether Plaintiff has attempted to obtain a 

copy of this video via any other means.

Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a subpoena appears reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence.1 However, Plaintiff has requested that the subpoena be 

served to NBCNews.com at One Microsoft Way in Redmond, Washington. This is the address 

of Microsoft Corporation and not of NBC. While Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis ,and

is thus entitled to service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal Service, 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(d), he must provide an appropriate address for service of the subpoena. Thus, the Court 

will deny Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena without prejudice. If Plaintiff is able to obtain an 

appropriate service address, he may request the issuance of a subpoena for this video again.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s request for the issuance of a subpoena to compel journalist Liz 

Freedman to testify (ECF Nos. 89, 94), is DENIED;

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

 

1

Plaintiff is advised, however, that journalists are protected by a qualified privilege against compelled disclosure 

in discovery. Should NBC News assert this privilege, Plaintiff will be required to explain the video’s relevance 

and any other attempts he has made to obtain the video in greater detail. Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292-93 

(9th Cir. 1993) (“Rooted in the First Amendment, the privilege is a recognition that society’s interest in protecting 

the integrity of the newsgathering process, and in ensuring the free flow of information to the public, is an interest 

‘of sufficient social importance to justify some incidental sacrifice of sources of facts needed in the administration 

of justice.’”), citing Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 183 (1979) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Case 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Document 102 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 4
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

2. Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a subpoena to NBCNews.com for “an 

unedited copy of the Kern Valley State Prison Lock Up episode where Dennis 

Hamilton appeared” (ECF Nos. 89, 94) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG Document 102 Filed 01/09/17 Page 4 of 4