Kendall v. Galindo

Background

Adam Michael Kendall, an incarcerated person representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously found that allegations involving officers Galindo and Uribe stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim, a Fourth Amendment bodily-privacy claim based on a strip search, and state-law battery and assault claims.

This order addressed two requests: Kendall’s request concerning a document subpoena directed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and his request for more time to complete discovery.

Subpoena forms

The court construed the subpoena request as a request for blank subpoena forms rather than as a request to immediately order the nonparty to produce all 31 categories of requested material. The court granted that request and directed the clerk to send Kendall two document-subpoena forms.

The court explained that Kendall must complete the forms and leave the signature line blank so the clerk can issue the subpoena. The United States Marshal may then serve the subpoena. The court cautioned that it would not direct the Marshal to serve a subpoena seeking records that could be obtained from the defendants or that would impose an undue burden on a nonparty.

The court also explained that subpoenas must seek relevant material and must account for the burden and expense imposed on the nonparty. It noted that several requested categories appeared to concern records available from defendants, including personnel files, medical examination reports, and certain emails. It further stated that information such as names and contact information is not a tangible thing covered by the document-production provision of Rule 45.

Because the defendants had appeared by the time of the request, the court directed Kendall to seek discovery from them when possible. It also reminded him that discovery requests and responses generally should be exchanged between the parties rather than filed with the court, unless they are used in the proceeding or the court directs filing.

Extension of time

The court denied as moot Kendall’s request for an extension of time to complete discovery. It stated that no deadline for the close of discovery existed. The court noted that the only pending deadline had been the December 27, 2023 deadline for dispositive motions, and that deadline had been extended. The court stated that Kendall could request more time to oppose a dispositive motion if necessary discovery was not available by the opposition deadline.

Disposition

The court granted the request for blank subpoena forms, directed the clerk to send two forms, and denied as moot the request for an extension of time to complete discovery. The order terminated Docket Nos. 13 and 14.