Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00421/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00421-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Gutierrez
Defendant
G. J. Gutierrez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

G. J. GUTIERREZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

A. GUTIERREZ,

 Defendant.

1:13-cv-00421-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 53.)

G. J. Gutierrez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s original Complaint, 

filed on March 22, 2013, against defendant A. Gutierrez (“Defendant”), for use of excessive 

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.) This case is presently in the discovery 

phase, pursuant to the court’s scheduling order issued on November 21, 2014. (Doc. 41.)

On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum by 

the court, to enable him to seek copies of case documents for Fresno Superior Court case no. 

F12100449, People v. Joe Esparza, from the Fresno County Public Defender and the Fresno 

County District Attorney. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff argues that it would be futile for him to simply 

submit a written request for the Esparza case file, given that the current discovery cut-off date 

Case 1:13-cv-00421-SAB Document 61 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 3
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

is July 21, 2015. Plaintiff contends that the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum may possibly 

expedite receipt of the sought after discovery.

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff=s request is denied, without prejudice to 

renewal of the request.

Subject to certain requirements set forth herein, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a 

subpoena commanding the production of documents from a non-party, and to service of the 

subpoena by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the 

Court will consider granting such a request only if the documents sought from the non-party are 

not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendant through a request for 

production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. It appears to the Court that the documents sought 

by Plaintiff may be equally available to Plaintiff and Defendant through a request to the Clerk 

of the Fresno County Superior Court. Plaintiff is advised that a case file can be voluminous, 

and he must identify which documents he seeks. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he made 

such a request to the Fresno County Superior Court. 

Should Plaintiff choose to file another request for the issuance of a subpoena duces 

tecum, Plaintiff must (1) identify with specificity the documents sought and from whom, and 

(2) make a showing in the request that the records are only obtainable through that third party. 

Also, documents requested must fall within the scope of discovery allowed in this action.1 

The time for conducting discovery in this action, including motions to compel, expires 

on July 21, 2015. Therefore, Plaintiff may wish to make an immediate request for an extension 

of the discovery deadline. 

///

 

1Under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, A[u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the 

scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party's claim or defense C including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of 

any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable 

matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the 

action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Case 1:13-cv-00421-SAB Document 61 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 3
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

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s request for 

the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum, filed on June 4, 2015, is DENIED, without prejudice to 

renewal of the request at a later stage of the proceedings, as instructed by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00421-SAB Document 61 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 3