(PC) Webster v. Haskins ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS WEBSTER, Case No. 1:18-cv-01640-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR THIRD- 13 v. PARTY SUBPOENAS (ECF Nos. 46, 47, 50) 14 HASKINS, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 15 Defendant. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO TAKE REMOTE VIDEOTAPED 16 DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF (ECF No. 48) 17 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff Thomas Webster (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained under 21 California Welfare Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners 22 within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 23 (9th Cir. 2000). This action proceeds against Defendant Haskins for denial of adequate medical 24 care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge 25 jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 22, 37.) 26 Currently before the Court are a variety of discovery-related motions from the parties. 27 Plaintiff has filed three separate motions for subpoenas to produce documents, information, or 28 objects, with all subpoenas directed to third parties. (ECF Nos. 46, 47, 50.) Defendant Haskins, 1 in turn, has filed a motion for leave of court to take a remote videotaped deposition of Plaintiff. 2 (ECF No. 48.) The parties have not yet filed responses to any of the motions, but the Court finds 3 responses unnecessary. The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 4 II. Plaintiff’s Motions for Third-Party Subpoenas 5 In his motions, Plaintiff seeks third-party subpoenas directed to: (1) Spokeo Inc for 6 information related to Dean Roberts; (2) Truthfinder Inc. for documents related to Defendant 7 Haskins and Rhonda Love;1 (3) Beenverified Inc. for documents related to Joan Helvig Krohn 8 and Cristine Meene; (4) Whitepages Inc. for documents related to Erin Blackwood, also known as 9 Erin Weber; (5) Department of State Hospitals Legal Division for documents related to Plaintiff 10 and Haskins House; and (6) Clovis Community Hospital for documents related to Plaintiff. (ECF 11 Nos. 46, 47, 50.) 12 Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena 13 commanding the production of documents from a non-party, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to service of 14 the subpoena by the United States Marshal, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, the Court will 15 consider granting such a request only if the documents sought from the non-party are not equally 16 available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendant through a request for the production 17 of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. A request for the issuance of a records subpoena requires 18 Plaintiff to: (1) identify with specificity the documents sought and from whom, and (2) make a 19 showing that the records are only obtainable through that third party. 20 Plaintiff’s instant requests for subpoenas do not meet these requirements. Although 21 Plaintiff has identified the type of information and documents sought and from whom, the 22 subpoenas do not establish that the records are only obtainable through the specified third party. 23 Specifically, it appears that the majority of the requests are intended to recover general 24 background information regarding certain individuals, including Defendant Haskins and Plaintiff. 25 Based on these motions, it does not appear that Plaintiff has made any effort to submit a 26 27 1 Rhonda Love was dismissed from this action on October 23, 2019, pursuant to Plaintiff’s notice of his willingness to proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Haskins and 28 to voluntarily dismiss all other Defendants and all other claims. (ECF No. 26.) 1 discovery request directly to Defendant Haskins regarding any information about Defendant 2 Haskins or Plaintiff, or that Plaintiff has attempted to secure his own medical records without 3 resorting to a subpoena.2 4 More importantly, Plaintiff has not established that the requested documents are relevant 5 to any claim or defense in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Indeed, most, if not all, of the 6 requests are overly broad, concern individuals who are not parties to this action, and will result in 7 the production of irrelevant documents and records. Finally, it appears that some of Plaintiff’s 8 requests are for general information that would require the creation of new documents, rather than 9 the production of existing documents and records. Any third-party requests must be limited such 10 that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery does not outweigh its likely benefit. Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court will not issue subpoenas that require the creation of documents that 12 do not already exist. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s instant requests for subpoenas shall be denied 13 without prejudice. 14 Plaintiff may renew his request for third-party subpoenas by filing a motion that: (1) sets 15 forth the specific documents requested and from whom; (2) demonstrates that the documents are 16 only obtainable through the third party; and (3) establish the relevance of the requested 17 documents to any claim or defense. 18 III. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Take Remote Videotaped Deposition of Plaintiff 19 In her motion, Defendant argues that the relevant portions of the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure require a party to obtain leave of court before taking an oral deposition if the deponent 21 is detained in prison, and for leave to take a deposition by remote means. (ECF No. 48.) 22 Although Plaintiff is a civil detainee and therefore not “confined in prison” as stated in Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 30, Defendant is requesting leave of court in an abundance of caution. 24 Defendant states that a remote deposition is necessary due to the COVID-19 outbreak. In 25 2 The Court notes that in a response to Plaintiff’s uncertified subpoena duces tecum, Clovis 26 Community Hospital indicated that records regarding a specific patient—in this case, Plaintiff’s 27 own medical records—could be produced simply by a written authorization from the patient, and apparently included a HIPAA compliant authorization for Plaintiff’s convenience. (ECF No. 50, 28 p. 10.) 1 addition, Defendant requests that the Court issue an order that the Department of State Hospitals 2 (“DSH”) make reasonable efforts to facilitate the deposition as the Court deems appropriate. (Id.) 3 Defendant’s motion is denied as moot. Pursuant to the Court’s May 4, 2020 Discovery 4 and Scheduling Order, “[p]ursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), the parties may 5 take any deposition under this section by video conference without a further motion or order of 6 the Court.” (ECF No. 42, p. 2.) No leave of Court is required for Defendant to take Plaintiff’s 7 deposition remotely or by videoconference. 8 With respect to Defendant’s request that the Court issue an order directing DSH to 9 facilitate the deposition, Defendant is informed that DSH is not a party to this action. The Court 10 therefore lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order, and further does not have any coordination 11 with DSH in assisting with the arranging of depositions. Counsel for Defendant Haskins may 12 wish to contact the Litigation/Subpoena Department at DSH to facilitate the taking of Plaintiff’s 13 deposition pursuant to any security or COVID-19-related restrictions the facility may have in 14 place. Should Defendant encounter difficulty in arranging the taking of Plaintiff’s deposition 15 before the close of discovery, Defendant is free to seek appropriate extensions of time as 16 necessary. 17 IV. Order 18 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motions for subpoenas to produce documents, information, or objections, (ECF 20 Nos. 46, 47, 50), are DENIED without prejudice; and 21 2. Defendant’s motion for leave of court to take remote videotaped deposition of Plaintiff, 22 (ECF No. 48), is DENIED as moot. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: October 6, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28