(PC) Reyna v. Kings County Jail ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN RENYA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00203-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING A SUBPOENA 13 v. (Doc. No. 38) 14 KINGS COUNTY JAIL, WENDY BATCHELOR, NAEEM SIDDIQI, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his Complaint 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 1, 4). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion 19 requesting the Court to issue a subpoena duces tecum upon Naphcare, Inc. (“Naphcare”) filed on 20 January 23, 2023. (Doc. No. 38, “Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies 21 Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff requests the Court to issue a subpoena duces tecum on third-party Naphcare to 24 produce the following documents: (1) all of Plaintiff’s medical records during his incarceration at 25 Kings County Jail; (2) any medical grievances and requests that Plaintiff filed; and (3) “[a] copy 26 of any rules, regulations, and policies on prescribing and removing medication from inmates at 27 Kings County Jail, [sic] by Naphcare employees.” (Id.). No Defendant filed an opposition to 28 Plaintiff’s Motion and the time to do so has expired. See L.R. 230(l). 1 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 2 “A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or 3 tangible things requires the responding person to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling 4 of the materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(D). “If the subpoena commands the production of 5 documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspect of premises before 6 trial, then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the 7 subpoena must be served on each party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). 8 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any 9 party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 10 the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 11 information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 12 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. 13 Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Furthermore, “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be 14 admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. 15 The United States Marshals Service (“USM”) handles Court requests for service of 16 subpoenas and summons. These requests are burdensome, time-consuming and place significant 17 demands on limited USM resources. Notably, Plaintiff was confined in the Kings County Jail and 18 Defendants Batchelor and Siddiqi were employed by Naphcare as healthcare providers at the 19 Kings County Jail. (See Doc. No. 18). Documents are deemed within a party’s possession, 20 custody, or control if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof, or the legal right to 21 obtain the property on demand. Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309945, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Thus, 22 while Plaintiff has identified documents that may be relevant, it appears the requested documents 23 can be obtained through the discovery process without a subpoena by making a request for 24 production of such documents from the named Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). By 25 using the discovery process to obtain the documents Plaintiff seeks, the Court will not be placing 26 additional strain on the already limited USM resources. If, however, after making such a request 27 upon the named Defendants, Defendants refuse to produce such documents because they do not 28 have access or the legal right to obtain such documents, Plaintiff may renew his request for an 1 | issuance of a subpoena to third-party Naphcare. 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 3 Plaintiff's motion requesting a subpoena duces tecum issued on Naphcare, Inc. (Doc. No. 4 | 38) is DENIED without prejudice. 5 ° | Dated: _ February 16, 2023 Mile. Th fareh Hack 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28