Griffin v. Google

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

BRUNSWICK DIVISION

CASIMIR P. GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:19-cv-132

v.

TAMMY JERNIGAN; and HENRY H.

CAMBELL,

Defendants.

O RDE R

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief and

his Motion for Discovery. Docs. 26, 27. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for

Discovery.

I. Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, Doc. 26

Plaintiff states he needs additional time to submit a brief on the sum amount Defendant

Jernigan is due to pay based on her failure to respond to this Court’s Order. Doc. 26 at 1. He

seeks an additional 60 days to submit a “proper brief” in this matter. Id. at 3. The Court ordered

Plaintiff to submit a brief by April 23, 2022, regarding this issue. Doc. 25. Given Plaintiff’s pro

se and incarcerated status, additional time is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief. Doc. 26. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file

any desired briefing on or before July 8, 2022. Plaintiff is forewarned his failure to comply

with this Court’s Order may result in dismissal of his case. Additionally, the Court is not

inclined to grant any additional extension.

II. Motion for Discovery, Doc. 27

Plaintiff moves the Court to issue subpoenas to several corporations, such as Amazon,

Google, and Meta. Doc. 27 at 1. Plaintiff also asks the Court to assist him with gaining access

to documents from these companies. Plaintiff notes the prison is on a modified lockdown, which

makes it “extremely hard” for him to obtain the requested information from the identified

companies. Id. at 3.

The court’s power to subpoena witnesses for an indigent civil litigant is discretionary.

See Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985) (noting a district court is only

required to issue subpoenas for indigent parties in criminal cases and in civil habeas cases).

Under this Court’s Standing Order of January 16, 1996, the Court will not issue blank subpoenas

to any pro se litigant who is incarcerated in a jail or prison. Order, In Re: Subpoenas, 4:96-mc-6,

at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 1996). In determining whether to allow any subpoena to issue on behalf

of an incarcerated, pro se litigant and the scope of any such subpoena, the Court will balance the

need to prevent the abuse of its subpoena power with the plaintiff’s need to obtain the

information sought by the subpoena. See Brown v. Johnson, No. 5:15-cv-89, 2016 WL 5387640,

at *3 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 23, 2016).

Plaintiff requests subpoenas for Amazon, Google, Meta, Instagram, LinkedIn, the United

States Copyright Office, Creative Inspirations Imprint, and CreateSpace (an Amazon subsidiary).

Doc. 27 at 1–2. For each entity, Plaintiff requests a number of documents, including: all

documents referencing him, Defendant, or four email addresses; the complete contents of his

own and Defendant’s Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, CreateSpace, and LinkedIn accounts; any

documents that mention or refer to Defendant on Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, CreateSpace, or

LinkedIn; and “all other documents, items of evidence, or sworn or unsworn statement or

affidavit that relate to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.” Id. at 2–3.

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s requests for subpoenas and, for the

following reasons, the requests are DENIED. This Court’s January 16, 1996 Standing Order

generally prohibits the issuance of any subpoena on behalf of any incarcerated pro se litigant.

On rare occasion, the Court has considered the issuance of subpoenas for such individuals, but

only in unique circumstances, where the requests are sufficiently narrow and targeted and the

requesting plaintiff demonstrates the need for the requested information. See Brown, 2016 WL

5387640, at *3. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the Court should issue his requested subpoenas.

First, Plaintiff’s requests are extremely broad. Plaintiff asserts a copyright infringement

claim against Defendant Tammy Jernigan and breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, negligence,

and “trespass to property” claims against Defendants Henry H. Cambell and Tammy Jernigan.

Doc. 10 at 1–2. Despite the limited nature of Plaintiff’s claims, he asks this Court to authorize

subpoenas directed at seven private companies and a government entity. Plaintiff seeks to obtain

nearly every document related to himself or Defendant Jernigan. Plaintiff’s requests, viewed

together, seek an enormous volume of documents, in which Plaintiff simply hopes to find

something relevant.

Second, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a clear need for the requested materials. Plaintiff

simply states, without elaboration, the information is needed to file a brief on damages.

However, Plaintiff does not explain how this vast swath of information would help him prove

damages. Plaintiff does not point to any specific documents or records which would help him

establish damages; instead, his requests and reasoning are broad and generalized. Plaintiff has

not met his burden showing the need for the documents he seeks.

Third, Plaintiff fails to show he cannot obtain the same or similar information through

ordinary discovery mechanisms. For many of the items Plaintiff requests, Plaintiff can seek to

obtain the same items through ordinary discovery devices, such as requests for production, if the

need arises. For example, Plaintiff requests the contents of Defendant’s Facebook, Instagram,

Amazon, CreateSpace, and LinkedIn accounts. Id. at 2.

In sum, Plaintiff's requested subpoenas are inappropriately broad, Plaintiff has not

demonstrated a clear need for the requested materials, and it apparent some of the information he

seeks could be obtained through other means. I have considered the need to prevent abuse of the

Court’s subpoena power and Plaintiffs need to obtain the information sought by the subpoena.

Ultimately, I find Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown a basis for issuing the requested subpoenas,

particularly considering the Court’s Standing Order generally prohibiting such subpoenas. Thus,

the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery.

SO ORDERED, this 10th day of May, 2022.

Bor

BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA