United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO QUASH (DOCUMENT 79) ORDER DENYING PLAINITIFF MOTION TO
QUASH (DOCUMENT 81) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
DENY JUDICIAL NOTICE (DOCUMENT 91)
L. BECK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dana Gray ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil
rights action on September 12, 2013. The action is proceeding
against Defendants Mundunuri, Ziomek, Rebel, Romero, Comelli
and Loadholt for violation of the Eighth Amendment and
Mundunuir, Ziomek, Romero, Comelli and Loadholt have answered
the Fourth Amended Complaint and the Court issued a Discovery
and Scheduling Order on May 2, 2016.
Rebel filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2016. The motion
2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash Defendant
Rebel's subpoena seeking her medical and central files.
Defendant Rebel opposed the motion on May 27, 2016. On June
22, 2016, Plaintiff filed her reply, along with a motion to
"deny judicial notice on Defendant Rebel's discovery
requests." Defendant Rebel filed an opposition on June
5, 2016, Defendant Rebel filed a supplemental opposition. In
light of the supplemental opposition, the Court VACATES the
Court's July 6, 2016, order granting Plaintiff's
motions are deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l),
and the Court now issues this order.
MOTION TO QUASH
may serve a subpoena commanding a nonparty "to produce
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible
things...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(C). The subpoena is
subject to the relevance requirements set forth in Rule
26(b), i.e., the subpoena may command the production of
documents which are "nonprivileged" and are
"relevant to any party's claim or defense" or
"reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The
information sought need not be admissible at trial as long as
it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Id. A "relevant
matter" under Rule 26(b)(1) is any matter that
"bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter
that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the
case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978).
timely motion, the court will quash a subpoena that
"requires disclosure of privileged or other protected
matter, if no exception or waiver applies." Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rebel's subpoena requests Plaintiff's (1) medical
records; (2) photographs; and (3) central file. Plaintiff
opposes the disclosure of her psychiatric records and central
file because she believes that the records are irrelevant to
the issues in this action.
where a dispositive motion is pending on grounds unrelated to
the merits of the action, the Court would consider quashing
the subpoena. In this case, however, it appears that the
requested records may be relevant to the motion to dismiss.
As Defendant pointed out in his supplemental opposition,
Plaintiff has attached numerous medical records to her
opposition to the motion to dismiss in attempt to show that
she did not discover the facts underlying her causes of
action until a later date.
extent that Plaintiff argues that a privilege applies to her
mental health records, she has waived any applicable
privilege by (1) placing her mental state at issue in her
First Amended ...