Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-64/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 David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to 

the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims, 

this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

Pursuant to the July 17, 2014, Discovery and Scheduling Order, discovery closed on December 

15, 2014. 

On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for a subpoena duces tecum to Eddie 

Hernandez, Litigation Coordinator at the Office of Correctional Safety for CDCR. In support of his 

DAVID ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TASSEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM

(Document 168)

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 175 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 2
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

request, Plaintiff explains that he recently received Defendants’ supplemental responses to discovery.1 

Defendants withheld certain documents and produced a privilege log supported by Mr. Hernandez’s 

declaration. 

Plaintiff’s motion explains why certain withheld documents are relevant and/or not 

confidential, and he now seeks these and other documents directly from Mr. Hernandez. However, the 

proper procedure to challenge a claim of privilege is through a motion to compel. Plaintiff cannot 

circumvent Defendants’ objections by requesting the document from the individual supporting the 

privilege.

Accordingly, his motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel on December 29, 2014. Discovery disputes 

related to a motion to compel filed prior to the discovery deadline are not subject to the discovery cut-off date. 

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 175 Filed 02/23/15 Page 2 of 2