United States District Court, E.D. California
ROBERTO M. GARCIA, JR., Plaintiff,
MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, JR., Defendant.
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RE-ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM, AND PLACING PARTIES ON NOTICE THAT THE SUBPOENA
TO AGENT M. DUNLOP, OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, SHALL ISSUE
AFTER FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER
(ECF No. 75.)
M. Garcia, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner
proceeding with limited purpose counsel with this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8,
2012, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action.
(Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, filed on June 14, 2013, against defendant
Sergeant Matthew M. Juarez, Jr. ("Defendant") for
use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.(ECF No. 11.)
23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for re-issuance of a
subpoena as to non-party Agent M. Dunlop, Office of Internal
Affairs, commanding the production of documents. (ECF No.
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things requires the
responding person to permit inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling of the materials." Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(D).
"If the subpoena commands the production of documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things or the
inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served
on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of
the subpoena must be served on each party." Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(a)(4). Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). "Relevant
information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence." Id.
requests re-issuance of the subpoena duces tecum
that was issued on December 7, 2015, compelling non-party
Agent M. Dunlop, Office of Internal Affairs, to produce
documents. The U.S. Marshal was unable to serve Agent M.
Dunlop with the subpoena because "the building was under
construction vacant of any businesses." (ECF No. 75 at
hearing on April 26, 2016, the Court advised Plaintiff to
send the Court a copy of the return of service he received
from the U.S. Marshal, together with a motion for reissuance
of the subpoena, to enable the Court to direct the Marshal to
make a further attempt to serve Agent M. Dunlop. Plaintiff
has now filed a motion as instructed and provided a copy of
the return of service for the Court's review.
seeks copies of "all records, documents, recorded
interviews and any data available concerning the
investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs on
this matter, Inmate Appeals 602 Log: KVSP 11-00760."
(ECF No. 75 at 3.) Plaintiff also requests production of the
specific documents identified below:
1. Incident Commander Review Report of May 23, 2011.
2. Regional Use of Force Coordinator Report, CDCR form 3034-A
3. Report of Executive Review Committee Use of
Force/Misconduct Allegation, CDCR Form 3036-A concerning this
4. Report of Executive Committee Critique and Qualitative
5. Copy from the report of the investigation conducted by
Internal Affairs ...