The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 109.) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA
Robert Benyamini ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on August 21, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the Third Amended Complaint, filed on May 23, 2008, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for adverse conditions of confinement, against defendants Debbie Mandujano,*fn1 Deputy Wilcox, Deputy Wilkerson, and Deputy O'Grady.*fn2 (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California State Prison-Sacramento ("CSP-SAC").
This case is presently in the discovery phase. On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. (Doc. 109.)
Plaintiff brings a motion for the Court to compel the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department ("Sheriff's Department") to produce "all documents pertaining to [Plaintiff] dating from August 15, 2002 up to January 22, 2004[, including] all grievance forms and any similar documents." (Motion, Doc. 109.)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 34(b)(2), 37(a), and 45 Under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense - 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).
Rule 34(b)(2) provides, with respect to the production of documents:
(2) Responses and Objections.
(A) Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.
(B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2).
Pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discovery may seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Rule 37(a)(3)(B) empowers a propounding party to bring a motion "for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection . . . if a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or if a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted -- or fails to permit inspection -- as requested under Rule 34." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii),(iv).
Under Rule 45, any party may serve a subpoena commanding a non-party "to attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1). "The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, ...