Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580-14/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS LEE MESTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. M. KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06580-AWI-SMS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES

TECUM AND TO COMPEL, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL

(Docs. 84 and 89)

Plaintiff Morris Lee Mester (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s complaint, filed November 12, 2004, against defendants Kim, Sacks, Neubarth, Nicholes,

Robinson, Plaza, and Malfi (“defendants”) on plaintiff’s claim that they violated the Eighth

Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. On September 5,

2006, plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Subpoena Motion for Production of Documentary Evidence

. . . (Subpoenas Duces Tecum).” (Doc. 84.) Defendants filed an opposition on September 18, 2006.

(Doc. 88.) On October 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 89.) Defendants filed an

opposition on October 17, 2006. (Doc. 90.) Plaintiff did not file a reply to either opposition. 

In his first motion, plaintiff asserts that he served a request for the production of documents

on defendants on July 29, 2006. Plaintiff contends that defendants objected on the ground that the

documents are in plaintiff’s medical file, which is available for plaintiff to review via an Olsen

review. Plaintiff contends that he reviewed his filed on August 19, 2005, December 19, 2005, and

May 2006, but the documents he is seeking were not in the file. Plaintiff further contends that the

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 91 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 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

2

records relating to plaintiff’s hernia and x-rays of plaintiff’s intestinal blockage have been removed

from his file. Plaintiff seeks the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directing a third party to make

the documents available to plaintiff. 

To the extent that plaintiff’s motion can be construed as a motion seeking an order

compelling defendants to produce the documents, plaintiff’s motion must be denied. It was not

accompanied by a copy of the discovery request at issue, defendants’ response to the discovery

request, or a certification that plaintiff attempted in good faith to resolve the dispute with defendants

prior to seeking the court’s intervention. 

Plaintiff is entitled to seek documentary evidence from third parties via the issuance of a

subpoena duces tecum under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which would be served by the

United States Marshal given that plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must describe

the documents he is seeking, which plaintiff has done, and plaintiff must specify from whom he is

seeking the documents. Directing the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving

a subpoena is not taken lightly by the court. In this instance, the court has concerns about futility,

as plaintiff has asserted that the documents are not in his medical file. If the documents are not in

his medical file, it is not clear to the court where they would be and the court will not send the

Marshal on a fishing expedition. Plaintiff’s motion is denied, without prejudice to renewal

accompanied by an offer of proof concerning the existence of the documents and the location of the

documents, and a statement concerning upon whom the third party subpoena would be served. 

In his second motion, plaintiff is seeking to compel a response to a request for the production

of documents he served on defendants on July 12, 2006. Although plaintiff contends that he

attempted in good faith to resolve the dispute with defendants prior to seeking the court’s

intervention, plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support this, and defendants’ counsel attests that

plaintiff did not attempt to meet and confer with him regarding his dissatisfaction with defendants’

response. Absent evidence in the form of a copy of his correspondence with defendants’ counsel

and/or a declaration setting forth his specific attempts to resolve the dispute without court

intervention, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the discovery order. For

///

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 91 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 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 Due to plaintiff’s incarceration, meeting and conferring is satisfied by an exchange of letters. 1

3

this reason, plaintiff’s motion is denied, without prejudice to re-filing with the requisite evidence that

he attempted to meet and confer with defendants’ counsel to resolve the discovery dispute.1

As set forth herein, plaintiff’s motions for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum and to

compel, filed September 5, 2006, and October 5, 2006, are HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice

to renewal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 91 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 3