United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEAWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff
is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On June 13,
2016, plaintiff filed motions to quash subpoenas issued to
the Valley State Prison Litigation Coordinator for
plaintiff's non-confidential prison central file, and to
"Correctional Health Services, " for all of
plaintiff's medical records. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) Defendant
filed an opposition. As discussed more fully below, the court
grants plaintiff's motions.
II.
Plaintiff's Claims
In his
pleading, plaintiff alleges that from April 2012 to September
2013, while he was a pretrial detainee housed in the
Sacramento County Jail, defendant maintained a policy or
custom of allowing a backflushing problem to exist within the
plumbing system at the jail, and refused to provide cleaning
supplies to sanitize the cell after waste water splashed out
of the toilets.
III.
Legal Standard
"Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense . . . .
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 45
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court, on
timely motion, to "quash or modify a subpoena that . . .
requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter,
if no exception or waiver applies; or subjects a person to
undue burden." Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), (iv).
"The party who resists discovery has the burden to show
that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of
clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections."
Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283
(C.D. Cal. 1998).
"Quashing
subpoenas goes against courts general preference for a broad
scope of discovery, [but] limiting discovery is appropriate
when the burden of providing the documents outweighs the need
for it." Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1,
062, 770 F.Supp.2d 332, 354-355 (D. D.C. 2011) (internal
quotations and citation omitted). "When evaluating
whether the burden of subpoena compliance is undue, the court
balances the burden imposed on the party subject to the
subpoena by the discovery request, the relevance of the
information sought to the claims or defenses at issue, the
breadth of the discovery request, and the litigant's need
for the information." Id. (internal quotations
omitted); see also Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232
F.R.D. 633, 637 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ("Although irrelevance
is not among the litany of enumerated reasons for quashing a
subpoena found in Rule 45, courts have incorporated relevance
as a factor when determining motions to quash.");
Fed.R.Evid. 401 (Evidence is relevant if "it has any
tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
be without the evidence."). "Whether a burdensome
subpoena is reasonable must be determined according to the
facts of the case, such as the party's need for the
documents and the nature and importance of the
litigation." Linder v. Dep't of Def., 133
F.3d 17, 24 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (internal citations and
quotations omitted). The court must limit discovery when the
"the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; the
party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain
the information by discovery in the action; or the proposed
discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule
26(b)(1)." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i-iii).
IV.
Two Pending Subpoenas
A.
Correctional Health Services
In the
subpoena directed to "Correctional Health Services,
" defendant seeks "any and all medical records of
Andrew Moak." (ECF No. 27 at 6.) Plaintiff objects that
his medical file at the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") is privileged and not
relevant to plaintiff's claims brought as a pretrial
detainee housed in the Sacramento County Jail. In response,
defendant contends that at plaintiff's deposition,
defense counsel clarified that this subpoena was directed to
the Sacramento County Correctional Health Services, not the
CDCR. Defense counsel avers that plaintiff has no objection
to the disclosure of his health records from the Sacramento
County Correctional Health Services records. (ECF No. 29 at
5.) Plaintiff did not file a reply to defendant's
response; however, in his motion to quash, plaintiff notes
that defendant sent the subpoena to Valley State Prison
Correctional Health Services. (ECF No. 28 at 2.)
The
subpoena does not identify "Correctional Health
Services" as the "Sacramento County Correctional
Health Services, " or "for the Sacramento County
Jail;" the subpoena does not state that the request is
for Mr. Moak's medical records from the Sacramento County
Jail; and no address for the nonparty subpoenaed is provided
on the first page of the subpoena form. (ECF Nos. 28 at 6;
29-1 at 2.) However, defendant provided a copy of the
subpoena which bears a proof of service on the second page
reflecting that the subpoena was served on Bret Butler,
Medical Records Tech, California Health Services, P.O. Box
588500, Elk Grove, CA 95758. (ECF No. 29-1 at 3.) A google
search for Correctional Health Services, Elk Grove, brought
up a website that appears to be a California state website
set up under the receivership established as a result of the
Plata v. Schwarzenegger class action against the
State of California over the quality of medical care in the
state's 33 prisons.[1] The California Correctional Health Care
Services, known as "CCHCS, " appears to cover only
state prisons, not county jails. Id. The general
contact information for this state government website is
"California Correctional Health Care Services, P.O. Box
588500, Elk Grove, CA 95658, " the same address as that
listed on the proof of service for the instant subpoena.
Id.
Thus,
despite defendant's effort to assuage plaintiff's
concern that the subpoena was directed to the Sacramento
County Correctional Health Services, and not the state
prison, the subpoena itself offers no such assurance. Rather,
it appears that although the name was correct:
"Correctional Health Services, " the subpoena was
not served on the proper address.[2] Because the subpoena was
directed to an address for the receivership over state
prisons, and not to the Sacramento County Jail or the
"Correctional Health Services" for Sacramento
County, plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena directed
to the Correctional Health Services and mailed to the
California Health Services is granted. ...