Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kareem Muhammad v. Chad Garrett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 24, 2012

KAREEM MUHAMMAD,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHAD GARRETT,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (Doc. 8)

Kareem Muhammad ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action for a violation of civil rights against defendant Chad Garrett, an officer of the Bakersfield Police Department, in his individual capacity ("Defendant"). Plaintiff requests the Court issue a subpoena duces tecum to Kern Medical Center to produce his medical records. (Doc. 8).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, any party may serve a subpoena that commands a non-party "to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C). Subpoenas are subject to the relevance requirements of Rule 26(b), and therefore may command the production of documents which are "non-privileged [and] . . . relevant to a party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Because Plaintiff seeks copies of his own medical records, he may directly request that Kern Medical Center provide copies of his medical records as well as a letter indicating that the records are true and correct copies of the records. See Haines v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139372, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2011). Therefore, Plaintiff should request these records directly from Kern Medical Center. 3

Moreover, in this case, the Court has not issued summons and Defendant has not been served 4 with the Second Amended Complaint. Thus, the action has not been scheduled, and formal discovery 5 has not yet commenced. Thus, Plaintiff's motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is 6 premature. 7

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for issuance of 8 a subpoena duces tecum is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120924

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.