Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

REYNALDA MOLINA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, et. al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01991-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE FOR SHANEL 

ALVARADO 

(ECF No.54)

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Reynalda Molina, Jacqueline Mendez-Maduena, Nicholas Chavez, and minors 

J.M., G.M., and N.A.C. filed this action on December 4, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Currently this 

action is proceeding on the second amended complaint, filed June 20, 2014 against Defendants 

City of Visalia, and Officers Adam Collins, Daniel Roberts, and Dirk Alfano alleging 

unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violations of substantive 

due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law claims. The claims is this 

action arise out of an incident in which officers attempted to make a traffic stop which led to a 

high speed chase and resulted in injury to Nicholas Chavez and the deaths of Edwardo Maduena 

and Ruben Molina . (ECF No. 40.) On November 20, 2015, Plaintiff Chavez’s claims were 

dismissed with prejudice upon the stipulation of the parties. (ECF No. 50.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 56 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 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

On July 20, 2015, Defendants personally served on nonparty Shanel Alvarado a subpoena 

to appear for a deposition on August 27, 2015 at 1:00 a.m. in Visalia, California. (Subpoena to 

Testify at Deposition in a Civil Action, Exhibit A, ECF No. 54-1.) The parties to this action 

appeared at 1:00 p.m. on August 27, 2015, for the deposition, however Ms. Alvarado did not 

appear. (Nonappearance of Shanel Alvarado Transcript, Exhibit B, ECF No. 54-1.) On 

September 2, 2015, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an order to show cause why 

sanctions should not issue for the failure to appear and for an order compelling attendance at the 

deposition. (ECF No. 54.)

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may depose any 

person for oral deposition. Where the person to be deposed is not a party to the action, the 

deponent’s attendance may be compelled by issuing a` subpoena under Rule 45. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(a)(1). 

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the requirements for a subpoena. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (a)(1)(A). As relevant here the subpoena must command the individual to 

appear at the time and place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). Rule 45(g) provides that the court 

“may hold in contempt a person, who having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey 

the subpoena or an order related to it.” “The party moving for contempt has the burden to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnor has violated a clear and specific 

court order.” Forsythe v. Brown, 281 F.R.D. 577, 587 (D. Nev. 2012) report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 3:10-CV-00716-RCJ, 2012 WL 1833393 (D. Nev. May 18, 2012).

While the parties were prepared to take the deposition of Ms. Alvarado at 1:00 p.m., the 

subpoena that was served commanded her to appear at 1:00 a.m. Therefore, Ms. Alvarado did 

not fail to comply with the subpoena by not being present at 1:00 p.m. Defendants have not met 

their burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Alvarado violated a clear and 

specific court order. Forsythe, 281 F.R.D. at 587. 

Further, the subpoena that was issued was not signed by either the Clerk of the Court or 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 56 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 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

3

an attorney as required by the Rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). This Court lacks the authority to 

compel compliance with an improperly issued subpoena.

Finally, Defendants have not established that they complied with Rule 45(b)(1) regarding 

the tendering of witness fees and service of the subpoena. Pursuant to Rule 45(b), serving a 

subpoena “requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that 

person’s attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day’s attendance and the mileage allowed by law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). The proof of service shows that no witness fees or mileage were 

provided when the subpoena was served. (ECF No. 54-1 at 7.)

For these reasons, the Court shall deny the application for an order to show cause due to 

Shanel Alvarado’s failure to appear for deposition. 

Defendants also seek an order compelling Shanel Alvarado to appear for a deposition on 

November 18, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. While Defendants argue that Ms. Alvarado has shown a 

penchant for trying to evade service, they have presented no evidence to support the assertion. 

The record shows that the process server personally served Ms. Alvarado in front of an address 

in Visalia at 9:08 p.m. (ECF No. 54-1 at 7.) When Ms. Alvarado did not appear at the 

deposition, counsel attempted to contact her at the two phone numbers that they had for her, but 

both numbers were out of service. (ECF No. 54-1 at 12.) Defendants have not shown that Ms. 

Alvarado has failed to comply with the subpoena to appear or that she has attempted to evade 

service of the subpoena. Accordingly, the Court shall deny the request for an order compelling 

Ms. Alvarado to appear at a set date and time for a deposition. Counsel in this action has the

authority under Rule 45 to issue a subpoena compelling the attendance of a nonparty for a 

deposition. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 56 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 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

4

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ ex parte

application for an order to show cause and order compelling the attendance of Shanel Alvarado 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 56 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 4