Jidoefor v. Sherburne County

Background

Plaintiff Okwuchukwu E. Jidoefor, who was proceeding without paying filing fees, filed a self-described motion asking the court to require Defendants to produce certified administrative records; dataset documents and information; transcripts and audio recordings involving him during specified periods; chronicles, reports, and statements; mail policies; the 2020 jail inmate handbook; grievance policies; grievances and responses; and other information Defendants possessed about him. He also sought to issue a subpoena and take a deposition. Defendants did not respond to the motion.

The court’s December 27, 2022 scheduling order limited each side to 25 interrogatories and stated that no depositions were permitted without first obtaining the court’s permission.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows a party to require a person to produce documents or appear for a deposition. The court noted that district courts disagree about whether a Rule 45 subpoena may be served on another party, but that courts generally may prevent misuse of subpoenas. For parties proceeding without paying filing fees, courts generally consider whether the requested information is relevant, material, and necessary to proving the case. A subpoena request may be denied if it is frivolous, immaterial, unnecessary, overly burdensome, unaffordable, or otherwise unreasonable.

The court also stated that, in a jail or prison setting, a party seeking a deposition must show that the deposition is relevant to the claims. The court found that Jidoefor’s requests were too vague and broad to allow it to determine whether the information was relevant. Jidoefor did not explain why the requested information was necessary to his claims. He also did not identify the person he wanted to depose or explain why the requested deposition information was relevant. If he intended to depose a governmental agency, Rule 30(b)(6) required him to describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity, which he had not done.

Ruling

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied Jidoefor’s self-described motion for records, a subpoena, and a deposition without prejudice. The court reminded Jidoefor that future discovery must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the limitations in the scheduling order, subject to proper objections by Defendants. The court also reminded Defendants that failing to respond to a future motion could result in the court granting the relief requested.