(PC) Long v. Corizon Health, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILLIP J. LONG, CASE NO. 1:17-cv-0898-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONTEMPT SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 13 v. BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA 14 JANE DOE, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 This action proceeds against a single defendant, Jane Doe, on an Eighth Amendment 18 medical indifference claim. (Docs. 11, 12.) Jane Doe is a nurse with the company Corizon Health, 19 Inc., which contracts with the Fresno County Jail to provide medical services to the jail inmates. 20 Plaintiff has twice sought Jane Doe’s identity by serving a subpoena on Corizon Health. In response 21 to his first subpoena, counsel for Corizon Health responded that the subpoena was too vague. An 22 amended subpoena then issued on April 16, 2020, providing further details to assist in identifying 23 Jane Doe. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff has recently submitted a filing indicating that counsel for Corizon 24 Health has not responded to the amended subpoena despite having been personally served on June 25 18, 2020. (See Docs. 27, 29.) 26 A court may impose sanctions against a nonparty for failure to comply with a subpoena 27 for document production pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 1 St. Louis Rams, LLC, 2018 WL 6164281, at *2 n.4 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2018) (“Rule 45 is the only 2 authority in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the imposition of sanctions against a 3 nonparty for failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum” (citing Pennwalt Corp., 708 F.2d at 4 494)). Under Rule 45, a court may exercise its contempt powers when a person who has been 5 served with a subpoena “fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to 6 it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). Contempt sanctions are among a court’s inherent powers. See Shillitani 7 v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); Ochoa v. Lopez, 2016 WL 9712071, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 8 June 20, 2016) (“A court has inherent power to enforce its orders by holding those who violate 9 those orders in civil contempt and issuing corresponding sanctions.” (citing Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 10 370)). In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 11 1. Attorney Matthew M. Grigg shall show cause within fourteen days from the date of 12 this Order why contempt sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply 13 with the amended subpoena served on him on June 18, 2020; and 14 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to submit a copy of (a) this Order; (b) the April 16, 15 2020, Order Directing Issuance and Service of Amended Subpoena (Doc. 25); and (c) 16 the Certificate of Service (Doc. 27) on: 17 MATTHEW M. GRIGG 18 Law Offices of Matthew M. Grigg 19 1700 N. Broadway, Ste. 360 20 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: January 26, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28