(PC) Khouanmany v. Alencastre ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY, No. 2:17-cv-1326-TLN-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with claims arising under Bivens v. Six 18 Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). She has filed a document entitled “Request for 19 Production of Documents” and “Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum.” ECF No. 98. Plaintiff 20 must, however, serve her requests for production on defense counsel rather than filing them with 21 the court.1 See E.D. Cal. Local Rules 250.2-250.4. And before the court will order the U.S. 22 Marshal to serve a subpoena duces tecum, plaintiff must first demonstrate that the requested 23 documents are not equally available to her and not obtainable from the defendant through a 24 properly served request for production. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 1 Pursuant to the court’s discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 96), written requests 28 for discovery must be served no later than September 27, 2019. 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs “Request for Production of 2 | Documents” is disregarded and her “Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum” (ECF No. 98) is 3 || denied without prejudice. 4 | DATED: August 13, 2019. tid, PDEA 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28