UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 29, 2011
FOR SUBPOENAS JAMES A. YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (Doc. 29.)
William Sutherland ("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. This case is presently in the discovery phase. On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for the clerk to send him four signed but otherwise blank subpoenas duces tecum to serve "upon the parties to which I am requesting documents." (Doc. 29.)
Plaintiff does not require subpoenas to request documents from parties. *fn1 Pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "any party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party . . . to inspect, copy, test, or sample [designated documents] in the responding party's possession, custody or control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (emphasis added). Pursuant to the Court's Discovery/Scheduling Order issued on September 8, 2011 in this action, "discovery requests must be served at least forty-five (45) days before the discovery deadline [of May 8, 2012]," and "[r]esponses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the request is first served to respond." (Doc. 27 at ¶¶2, 3.) Therefore, to request documents from a party, Plaintiff only needs to serve a written request upon the party pursuant to the Federal Rules and the Court's order. Such initial requests should not be filed with the Court. *fn2 Local Rule 250.3. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for subpoenas shall be denied.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for subpoenas is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.