Summary
recognizing court's authority to act sua sponte to avoid imposing undue burden on third-party subject to subpoena under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)
Summary of this case from Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DoeOpinion
2:21-cv-00361-MJP-JRC
02-02-2022
JAMALL S. BAKER, Plaintiff, v. MELVIN HOPKINS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SUBPOENAS
J. Richard Creatura, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a request for subpoenas. Dkt. 81. As discussed below, the Court sua sponte quashes plaintiff's request for subpoenas and strikes them from the record.
Plaintiff has filed several proposed subpoenas seeking documents and information from several non-parties, as well as defendants. But some of plaintiff's proposed subpoenas are overbroad, other proposed subpoenas seek irrelevant information, and certain proposed subpoenas are facially deficient. Furthermore, because plaintiff paid the filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), a non-party must serve the subpoenas on plaintiff's behalf. However, plaintiff has not shown that he has obtained a non-party to serve the subpoenas. Therefore, the Court quashes plaintiff's request for subpoenas and strikes the proposed subpoenas from the record. Although plaintiff may file a new, proper request for subpoenas, any future request must cure the deficiencies identified in this order.
The Court allowed plaintiff's third amended complaint to proceed on his retaliation claim against certain defendants. Dkts. 62, 76. The Court issued a scheduling order with a discovery deadline of June 13, 2022. Dkt. 79. On January 31, 2022, plaintiff filed a request for subpoenas. Dkt. 81. The request consists of several proposed subpoenas in which plaintiff seeks the production of various information from non-parties as well as defendants. See Id. at 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 18, 21, 24.
One proposed subpoena is directed to nonparty Freebird Publishers. Id. at 1. It requests: “Any and all information related to Jamall S. Baker's purchase using MADAMS PHOTO. This should include the letters written by Mr. Baker between March 2021 and July 2021, to also include original copies of the photographs sent to Mr. Baker.” Id. A second proposed subpoena is directed to Adams State University Bookstore and requests “documents related to [plaintiff's] placing an order with [that] Bookstore in April of 2021. Produce any and all information related to this order.” Id. at 10.
A third proposed subpoena is directed to “Monroe Corrections Complex/Phone Site Administrator.” Id. at 4. It seeks: “Any and all documentation related to any incarcerated individuals contacting any telephone or cellular phone that plaintiff contacts. Identify all incarcerated individuals who call any phone numbers that Plaintiff . . . calls which is family members [sic].” Id. A fourth proposed subpoena is directed to “State of Washington Department of Corrections Intelligence and Investigation” and contains essentially the same request as the third proposed subpoena. Id. at 7. A fifth subpoena is directed to the Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and all defendants and similarly requests: “And any all information related to [DOC] employee[s] and/or agents contacting any family member or friend belonging to Plaintiff . . . in an attempt to counter his relationship with his childhood heart [sic] and her assistance in helping him to advocate for himself against the [DOC].” Id. at 18.
A sixth proposed subpoena is directed to J-Pay Corporation. Id. at 13: It states: “Identify the IP addresses that has [sic] set up multiple J-Pay accounts . . . connected to Jamall S. Baker . . . and any other incarcerated individual at the Monroe Corrections Complex.” Id.
Plaintiff's seventh and eighth proposed subpoenas do not state the documents they seek. Id. at 21, 24.
“Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 (a)(1), a subpoena may direct non-party to a case to produce designated documents or electronically stored information.” Casterlow-Bey v. Trafford Publ'g Co., No. 17-5459 RJB, 2017 WL 11358483, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 30, 2017). “A party . . . responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1). The Court “must enforce this duty, ” id., and may do so sua sponte, Rodrigues v. Ryan, No. CV1608272PCTDGCESW, 2018 WL 1109557, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 1, 2018) (citation omitted).
Similarly, “[a] subpoena issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 is subject to the permissible scope of discovery set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.” Ryan, 2018 WL 1109557, at *2 (citation omitted). Under Rule 26(b)(1), parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim . . . and proportional to the needs of the case.” Yet, “on its own, ” the Court may limit discovery if it is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) or that “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). And, “[w]hile discovery is a valuable right . . ., the necessary restriction may be broader when a nonparty is the target of discovery.” Dart Indus. Co. v. Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646, 949 (9th Cir. 1980) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, plaintiff's first two proposed subpoenas are overbroad. In them, plaintiff seeks “any and all information” related to a purchase and an order, each of which plaintiff vaguely describes. Given these overbroad descriptions, figuring out what documents plaintiff seeks would impose on undue burden on the non-parties to which plaintiff directs these proposed subpoenas.
In the third, fourth, and fifth proposed subpoenas, plaintiff seeks “any and all documentation” related to prisoners or prisoner officials who have attempted to contact his family members or “childhood heart.” Assuming this information exists, it is irrelevant to the allegations underlying plaintiff's retaliation claim. So plaintiff may not subpoena it. Moreover, plaintiff directed one of these subpoenas to defendants. Assuming this information were discoverable, plaintiff should have made this discovery request directly to defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; see also Morris v. McGrath, No. C 04-3142SI(PR), 2006 WL 870965, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2006) (“The court generally is not involved in the discovery process . . . .”). “A Rule 45 subpoena may not be used to circumvent discovery rules . . . .” Thornton v. Crazy Horse, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00251-TMB, 2012 WL 13032922, at *2 (D. Alaska Jan. 3, 2012) (alteration adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The sixth proposed subpoena is directed to J-Pay Corporation and states: “Identify the IP addresses that has [sic] set up multiple J-Pay accounts . . . connected to Jamall S. Baker . . . and any other incarcerated individual at the Monroe Corrections Complex.” Dkt. 81 at 13. This request is unclear and bears no discernible relationship to the allegations underlying plaintiff's retaliation claim.
Plaintiff's seventh and eighth proposed subpoenas are facially deficient because they do not specify the information they seek.
Accordingly, the Court sua sponte QUASHES plaintiff's proposed subpoenas. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE plaintiff's request for subpoenas (Dkt. 81) from the record. Because they are plainly deficient and bear no discernible relationship to this case, plaintiff must not resubmit the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth proposed subpoenas.
Plaintiff may, if he wishes, resubmit the first, second, seventh, and/or eighth proposed subpoenas. If plaintiff does so, any proposed subpoena must cure the deficiencies identified above.
Furthermore, the Court notifies plaintiff that, while the Court must authorize a subpoena for a pro se party, a subpoena must be served by “[a]ny person who is at least 18 years old and not a party.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1) (emphasis added). In other words, a non-party must serve the subpoena on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff may not do so himself. And, because plaintiff paid the filing fee is not proceeding IFP, the Court will not do so for him. Therefore, if plaintiff wishes to resubmit the first, second, seventh, and/or eighth proposed subpoenas, or wishes to submit any other proper subpoena, he must simultaneously provide evidence that he has obtained a non-party to serve the subpoenas on his behalf. If any future request for a subpoena is not accompanied by such evidence, the Court will quash the subpoena and strike it from the record.