Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105-17/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coker
Defendant
T. Day
Defendant
Lanard Kitchens
Plaintiff
Leach
Defendant
Tordsen
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LANARD KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORDSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-0105-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR SUBPOENAS 

(ECF No. 76)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 10). This matter

proceeds against Defendant Tordsen on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, 

and against Defendants Tordsen, Coker, Leach and Day on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment claim for subjecting Plaintiff to conditions of confinement that amounted to 

punishment. (ECF No. 28). The complaint concerns acts that occurred while Plaintiff was 

a pretrial detainee at Kings County Jail.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for Judicial Intervention,” in substance, a 

request for subpoenas. (ECF No. 76).

II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

To put Plaintiff’s discovery requests in context, the Court will briefly review his 

cognizable claims. (See ECF No. 28). Plaintiff alleges essentially as follows:

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 78 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 6
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 was housed in the Secure Housing Unit of the Kings County Detention 

Center on December 29, 2010. Defendant Tordsen searched Plaintiff’s cell, found 

damage to the cell, and had Plaintiff strip-searched. Plaintiff was handcuffed and 

transferred to another holding cell where he was kept for six hours. Plaintiff complained 

to Defendant Tordsen about the holding cell. In response, Defendant Tordsen placed 

Plaintiff in a cell covered with feces. Defendant Tordsen provided Plaintiff with minimal 

cleaning materials. 

Plaintiff asked for a grievance form so he could complain about the cell, but 

Defendant Tordsen refused to provide him with one. 

Plaintiff threatened to commit suicide if he was not removed from the cell. 

Defendants Coker, Leach, and Day responded to Plaintiff’s threat. Defendant Day gave 

Plaintiff the option of either cleaning the cell or being placed on suicide watch. Plaintiff

chose to be placed on suicide watch, and was placed on suicide watch for the night. 

Plaintiff was returned to Defendant Tordsen’s custody and to the filthy cell the 

following day. Plaintiff continued to clean the cell with limited supplies. While cleaning, 

he slipped and injured his head. Plaintiff started to experience facial numbness, became

concerned about brain damage, and decided to slit his wrists. 

Plaintiff was later diagnosed with facial paralysis and a back injury. 

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff requests the Court to order California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), a 

non-party, to 1) authenticate medical records that Plaintiff intends to use as evidence; 2) 

provide the full names, addresses, and daytime phone numbers of 6 non-defendant 

CFMG employees “who provided care, treatment and information for” Plaintiff’s injuries; 

and 3) provide the work schedule listing which CFMG employees were on duty at the 

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 78 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 6
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

Kings County Jail on six listed dates. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s requests.

A. Availability of Discovery Against Non-Parties

“While discovery is a valuable right and should not be unnecessarily restricted, 

the ‘necessary’ restriction may be broader when a nonparty is the target of discovery.” 

Dart Indus. Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chem. Co., Inc., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980); 

accord Soto v. Castlerock Farming and Transp., Inc., 282 F.R.D. 492, 506 (E.D. Cal. 

2012). Thus, a party may not generally propound a request for admission or production

on a non-party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1); 36(a)(1); see also, e.g., In re Liu, 282 B.R. 904, 

909 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2002). Rather, the proper means of obtaining information from a 

non-party is through a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), 45. Rule 45 permits the 

issuance of a subpoena to: “command each person to whom it is directed to... attend 

and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible 

things in that person’s possession, custody or control; or permit the inspection of 

premises.”

A pro se Plaintiff’s ability to obtain a subpoena commanding the production of 

documents from a non-party is subject to certain requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 

34(c), 45. The Court will only consider issuing a subpoena if the documents sought from 

the non-party are not otherwise available to Plaintiff and cannot be obtained from 

Defendant through a request for the production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34; see also, e.g., 

Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 412 (C.D. 

Cal. 2014)(quashing subpoena where party already had the information and/or the 

opportunity to obtain it). If Defendant objects to Plaintiff's discovery request, Plaintiff 

must next file a motion to compel. Fed R. Civ. P. 37(a). Only if the Court rules that the 

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 78 Filed 03/05/15 Page 3 of 6
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

documents are discoverable, but that Defendant does not have care, custody, and 

control of them, may Plaintiff then seek to subpoena a non-party. Additionally, as with all 

discovery requests, the Plaintiff’s right to subpoena information is limited by Rule 26(b); 

that is, he is only entitled to obtain “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court will not 

issue a subpoena for a non-party unless Plaintiff has followed the above procedure and 

the information he seeks falls within the scope of 26(b).

B. Authentication of Evidence

The authentication of evidence is a separate, if at times overlapping, issue. Fed. 

R. Evid. 901 and 902 set forth a number of ways that evidence can be authenticated and 

list categories of evidence that is self-authenticating. In addition, documents produced in 

discovery by one party may be deemed authenticated when offered by a party-opponent, 

at least when there is no dispute as to their genuineness. Orr v. Bank of America, 285 

F.3d 764, 777 n. 20 (9th Cir. 2002); Maljack Prod., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video 

Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 889 n. 12 (9th Cir. 1996); Coal. for a Sustainable Delta v. 

McCamman, 725 F.Supp.2d 1162, 1180 (E.D. Cal. 2010). However, Plaintiff may also 

authenticate evidence by requesting Defendant to admit a particular document’s 

authenticity in a request for admission. See, e.g., Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 

F.R.D. 441, 446 (C.D. Cal. 1998)(“if an admission as to the authenticity of a document is 

sought, what the propounding party really wants to know [is] whether it must be prepared 

to prove that the document is authentic at the time of trial, or whether the responding 

party will essentially stipulate that such effort will not be necessary”). Similarly, outside 

of the discovery process, Plaintiff may simply request that Defendant stipulate to a 

document’s authenticity. However, because of the narrower scope of discovery against 

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 78 Filed 03/05/15 Page 4 of 6
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

5

non-parties, Plaintiff may not request a non-party to authenticate a document through 

either a request for admission or a subpoena.

C. Plaintiff’s Subpoena Requests

Here, the record does not indicate whether Plaintiff requested the three categories 

of information at issue here from Defendants during discovery. However, Plaintiff did not 

move to compel Defendant’s production of this information. (See ECF No. 65)(motion to 

compel filed on other grounds). Several months before the discovery period ended, the 

Court advised Plaintiff of the proper procedure for obtaining subpoenas. (ECF No. 73). 

Discovery was extended for several months, and Plaintiff had ample time to make his 

requests of Defendants, but did not. 

1) Authentication of Plaintiff’s Medical Records.

Plaintiff asks the Court to order CFMG to authenticate his medical records, 

alleging that he has made several attempts to contact CFMG himself for this purpose, 

and that the agency “has refused to respond to any of Plaintiff’s letters or requests.”

However, as explained above, Plaintiff may not serve a subpoena requiring a non-party 

to authenticate a document. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). Plaintiff could have

requested authentication from Defendants during discovery. However, there is no 

indication he did so, nor did he file a motion to compel prior to the discovery cut-off.

Plaintiff may still request that Defendants stipulate to the records’ authenticity. If 

Defendants refuse, however, Plaintiff may not then move to compel. Plaintiff may also 

still authenticate the documents himself, through any of the methods listed in Fed. R. 

Evid. 901 (e.g., by calling the health care providers to testify). Accordingly, the Court will 

deny Plaintiff’s request to subpoena CFMG to authenticate his health records.

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 78 Filed 03/05/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

2) Contact Information of Non-Defendant CFMG Employees

Plaintiff asks the Court to order CFMG to produce the contact information of six 

medical personnel who are not defendants in the current action. Plaintiff tried to add 

three of these individuals as defendants in an amended complaint, but his attempt was 

denied. (ECF No. 74). He not demonstrated why he needs these individuals’ contact 

information to support his present case. Therefore, the court will deny Plaintiff’s request 

as irrelevant. 

3) Work Schedules at King’s County Jail 

Plaintiff asks the Court to order CFMG to produce the work schedules of its 

employees at Kings County Jail on six listed dates. The conduct that forms the basis of 

Plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred on two of these dates – December 29 and 30, 2010. 

Plaintiff has not indicated what events occurred on the other four dates. Thus, to the 

extent that Plaintiff requests staff schedules for dates unrelated to his claims, the Court 

will deny his request based on relevance. As for the remaining two dates, again, Plaintiff 

could have requested this information in discovery from Defendants; if they objected, 

Plaintiff could have filed a motion to compel. Because he apparently did neither, his 

request for a subpoena will be denied. 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for 

subpoenas (ECF No. 76).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 78 Filed 03/05/15 Page 6 of 6