Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00354/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00354-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 Gregory Ell Shehee is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction; 

therefore, this action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoenas served by Defendants, filed 

on August 8, 2016. (ECF No. 18.) Defendants filed an opposition on September 2, 2016. Plaintiff 

did not file a reply within seven days, and the motion is therefore deemed submitted for review. Local 

Rule 230(l). On September 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended motion to quash the subpoenas served 

by Defendants, which is essentially the same motion as previously filed. (ECF No. 25.) 

///

///

///

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COSBY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

[ECF Nos. 18, 25]

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 09/19/16 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

I.

BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2016, the Court severed Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against Defendants 

Cosby and S. Valley arising from an incident that took place on January 16, 2009, from his claims of 

excessive force against Defendants Redding and Blanco in case number 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB 

(PC), Gregory Ell Shehee v. K. Trumbly, et.al. (ECF No. 4.) 

On August 4, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute 

of limitations. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 17, 2016, and Defendants filed a 

reply on September 2, 2016. (ECF Nos. 19, 21.) 

As previously stated, on August 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash the subpoenas served 

by Defendants, and Defendants filed an opposition on September 2, 2016. (ECF Nos. 18, 22.) 

Plaintiff filed an amended motion to quash on September 14, 2016. (ECF No. 25.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows a party to command in a subpoena to 

produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things [that] requires the responding 

person to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(a)(1)(D). “A party cannot object to a subpoena duces tecum served on a nonparty, but rather, must 

seek a protective order or file a motion to quash” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

45(c)(3)(A). Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 636 (C.D. Cal. 2005); see also Cal. 

Sportfishing Prot. Alliance v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638, 643 (E.D. Cal. 2014). 

Rule 45(d)(3)(A) sets forth the bases for a court to quash or modify a subpoena, which 

provides, in pertinent part:

[o]n timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the 

subpoena if it (i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance; (ii) requires a person who is not 

a party ... to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is 

employed or regularly transacts business...., or (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other 

protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 09/19/16 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 3(d)(3)(A). “Although irrelevance is not among the litany of enumerated reasons for 

quashing a subpoena found in Rule 45, courts have incorporated relevance as a factor when 

determining motions to quash a subpoena.” Moon, 232 F.R.D. at 637 (citing Goodyear Tire & Rubber 

Co. v. Kirk’s Tire & Auto Servicenter, 211 F.R.D. 658, 662 (D. Kan. 2003)). Thus, in determining 

undue burden, the Court should weigh the burden of the subpoenaed party against the requested 

information’s relevance, need of the serving party for the information, the breadth of the information 

requested, the time period covered by the request, and the particularity with which the request is made. 

Moon, 232 F.R.D. at 637. 

In the operative complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendants used excessive force on two 

separate occasions. Plaintiff contends that he suffered serious spinal injuries, nerve damage and 

broken ribs. Defense counsel, James C. Phillips, declares that on August 8, 2016, he caused to be 

issued two identical subpoenas in each of these cases (instant case and companion case 1:14-cv00706-DAD-SAB (PC), Shehee v. Trumbly, et.al.), seeking essentially the same records. (Declaration 

of James C. Phillips (“Phillips Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 22.) The subpoenas were served on Coalinga 

State Hospital and the Fresno County Jail on August 22 and 23, 2016. (Id.) Counsel’s intent was to 

obtain one set of the subpoenaed records for use in both cases. (Id.) The subpoenas requested 

Plaintiff’s medical records from Coalinga State Hospital and the Fresno County Jail (where Plaintiff is 

presently housed) and the Hospital police department records pertaining to the two incidents of use of 

force. (Id.) Although counsel did not submit a copy of the actual subpoenas, the Court accepts 

counsel’s representation in his declaration signed under penalty of perjury and as an officer of the 

Court, as to the validity of such requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c). Counsel reasons that 

“[b]ecause the subpoenaed records in this matter would be duplicative of the subpoenaed records in 

the companion case from which these defendants were severed, defendants have subpoenaed the 

records now, before answering and before the issuance of a discovery order simply as matter of 

convenience to the personnel charged with copying the records.” (Opp’n at 2:16-20, ECF No. 22.) 

In his motion to quash, Plaintiff merely contends that the subpoenas invade his privacy rights 

and create an “undue burden.” (Mot. at 1, ECF No. 18.) The Court finds that Defendants’ subpoenas 

for Plaintiff’s medical records from Coalinga State Hospital and the Fresno County Jail, and the 

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 09/19/16 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

corresponding police reports relating to the incidents of the use of force, are reasonably limited in 

scope and relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to quash 

the subpoenas shall be denied. 

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to quash the 

subpoenas issued by Defendants are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 09/19/16 Page 4 of 4