Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSHUA ROBERTSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00009-FJS (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING VIDEO HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBPOENA

13 v. THIRD PARTY CALIFORNIA MEDICAL

GROUP/WELLPATH

14 JOHN LATORRACA CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, et al., (ECF No. 54)

15

Defendants. Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026

16 Time: 10:30 a.m.

17 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

18 Plaintiff Joshua Robertson (“Plaintiff”) is a former pretrial detainee and current civil

19 detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

20 § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against: (1) Defendants

21 Gutierrez, Sandoval, and Reed for a Due Process violation for conditions of confinement related

22 to cell sanitation; (2) Defendant Gutierrez for a Due Process violation for conditions of

23 confinement related to removal of the mattress; and (3) Defendants Merced County and John

24 Latorraca Correctional Facility (“JLCF”) for Monell liability. All parties have consented to

25 magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 43.)

26 On March 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order and a motion to

27 compel discovery answers. (ECF Nos. 49, 50.) Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel

28 discovery answers on March 4, 2026. (ECF No. 52.)

1 The Court issued an order directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the discovery

2 dispute and possible modification of the scheduling order and to file a joint statement following

3 the parties’ conference. (ECF Nos. 51, 53.) The Court further stayed briefing on Plaintiff’s

4 motions pending the outcome of the parties’ meet and confer. (Id.)

5 On March 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to subpoena California Medical

6 Group/Wellpath, a renewed motion to modify the scheduling order, and a motion to withdraw his

7 prior motions to compel. (ECF Nos. 54–56.) On March 26, 2026, Defendants filed the parties’

8 joint statement, signed by Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants, regarding the parties’ March 12,

9 2026, and March 13, 2026, telephonic discussions. (ECF No. 58.) Pursuant to Plaintiff’s March

10 18, 2026, motions and the parties’ joint statement, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to

11 withdraw the motions to compel and Plaintiff’s motions to modify the scheduling order as

12 unopposed. (ECF No. 59.) The Court indicated that it would address Plaintiff’s motion for a

13 subpoena, (ECF No. 54), by separate order. (Id.)

14 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA

15 In his motion, Plaintiff states that during the parties’ March 13, 2026, meet and confer, the

16 parties agreed that Plaintiff would need to subpoena Defendant’s contracted medical provider,

17 California Forensic Medical Group/WellPath (“CFMG”), to obtain the identity of a John Doe

18 defendant. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff contends that the proposed subpoena is narrowly tailored and

19 for the sole purpose of identifying a John Doe defendant. Plaintiff states that “Defendant’s

20 January 8, 2026, discovery answers indicated that they do not have information regarding the

21 identities of CFMG’s contracted medical employees.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff concludes that he has no

22 other means of obtaining the identity of the John Doe defendant except by subpoenaing “the

23 identities, affiliation, and job titles of all of the contracted medical and mental-health employees

24 that CFMG provided to Defendant JLCF in 2023–the time of the events giving rise to this

25 lawsuit.” (Id.)

26 Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena

27 commanding the production of documents from a non-party, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to service of

28 the subpoena by the United States Marshal, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

1 45(a)(3) provides that “[t]he clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party

2 who requests it.” However, before a subpoena can be issued, the court must ensure that the party

3 serving the subpoena has taken reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense

4 on the person or entity to be served with the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1); see Austin v.

5 Winett, No. 1:04-cv-05104-DLB-PC, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008)

6 (“Directing the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not

7 taken lightly by the court.”).

8 In addition, the Court will consider granting such a request only if the documents sought

9 from the non-party are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendant

10 through a request for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. A request for the issuance

11 of a records subpoena requires Plaintiff to: (1) identify with specificity the documents sought and

12 from whom, and (2) make a showing that the records are only obtainable through that third party.

13 A. Specific Documents Sought

14 Plaintiff’s request for “the identities, affiliation, and job titles of all of the contracted

15 medical and mental-health employees that CFMG provided to Defendant JLCF in 2023,” (ECF

16 No. 54, p. 2), does not identify specific documents to be produced. The request appears most

17 similar to an interrogatory.

18 A Rule 45 subpoena cannot be used to require third parties to respond to interrogatories.

19 See Eichler v. Sherbin, 520 Fed. Appx. 560, 562 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The district court did not abuse

20 its discretion in denying Eichler’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories by non-

21 parties.”); United States v. Dollison, No. 309CR000106SLGDMS, 2017 WL 3873698, at *8 n.6

22 (D. Alaska Sept. 4, 2017) (“Because [the witness] is not a party to this case, he is not subject to

23 requests for interrogatories.”). Instead, a subpoena served upon a third party may seek only:

24 (1) testimony; (2) the production of documents; or (3) inspection of premises. Fed. R. Civ. P.

25 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).

26 Even assuming Plaintiff’s request sought the production of specific documents (for

27 example, payroll records for all CFMG medical and mental-health employees contracted to

28 Defendant JLCF in 2023, or sign-in sheets for all medical and mental-health employees who

1 entered the medical building at JLCF in 2023), as currently drafted, the Court finds that the

2 request is not proportional to Plaintiff’s stated need of identifying the John Doe defendant(s).

3 Although Plaintiff did not specifically reference his discovery requests, Plaintiff sought

4 similar identifying information in his November 23, 2025, interrogatories to Defendant JLCF.

5 (ECF No. 52, pp. 7–9.) Though an interrogatory rather than a request for production of

6 documents, Plaintiff requested information narrowly tailored to the identification of the last

7 names of two individuals.1 Plaintiff’s subpoena to CFMG, on the other hand, seeks the identities,

8

1 The relevant interrogatory states as follows:

9

10 5 Please provide the last name of each of the following people:

(1) Johnathan Doe

11 Physical Description: White male, lean build, brown hair, approximately

mid-thirties in appearance, approximately 6’2 tall.

12 Job description: In 2023, Johnathan Doe was a mental health worker who

would visit certain civil detainees who took “psyche [sic] meds” or were listed as

13

having mental-health problems or who requested mental-health assistance.

14 Johnathan Doe would visit the civil detainees who were experiencing

psychiatric/psychological distress in their dorms or safety cells.

15 Johnathan Doe would also visit civil detainees in their safety cells and ask

if they had suicidal or homicidal ideation by asking, “Are you feeling suicidal?

16 Are you feeling homicidal?”

Some of Johnathan Doe’s other job duties included visiting civil detainees

17

in their safety cells to document their progress and clearing civil detainees to be

18 released from their safety cells.

Johnathan Doe also would facilitate the “telepsyche” [sic] appointments

19 between the civil detainees and the psychiatrist via Skype or Zoom in an office in

the medical building at JLCF.

20 (2) Miguel Doe

Physical Description: Hispanic male, heavy build, black hair,

21

approximately mid to late-thirties in appearance, approximately 6’1 tall.

22 Job Description: In 2023, Miguel Doe was a mental health worker who

would visit civil detainees who were experiencing psychiatric/psychological

23 distress in their dorms or safety cells and ask if they had suicidal or homicidal

ideation by asking, “Are you feeling suicidal? Are you feeling Homicidal?”

24

Defendant JLCF should be able to identify Johnathan and Miguel Doe

25 based upon the physical descriptions and job descriptions provided and the fact

that there was only one mental health worker whose first name was “Johnathan”

26 and only one mental health worker whose first name was “Miguel” employed at

JLCF who fit the foregoing physical descriptions and job descriptions during the

27 time of the events giving rise to this action.

28 (ECF No. 52, pp. 8–9.)

1 affiliation, and job titles of all CFMG medical and mental-health employees contracted to

2 Defendant JLCF during the year 2023. The Court finds that any documents responsive to

3 Plaintiff’s current request would go well beyond the information required to merely obtain the

4 last names of the two unidentified defendants and would be potentially unduly burdensome to

5 non-party CFMG. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3).

6 B. Records Only Obtainable Through Third Party

7 While Plaintiff indicates he received Defendant’s January 8, 2026, discovery answers,

8 those responses are not included in the record before the Court. Accordingly, the only information

9 before the Court is Plaintiff’s statement that Defendants “do not have information regarding the

10 identities of CFMG’s contracted medical employees.” (ECF No. 54, p. 2.)2 With this limited

11 record, the Court cannot determine whether the information sought is obtainable from Defendant

12 JLCF or any other defendant, or only from third party CFMG.

13 III. HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA

14 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds it appropriate to schedule a hearing on Plaintiff’s

15 motion for subpoena. See Local Rule 230(l).

16 While no further briefing on the motion is necessary, the parties should attend the hearing

17 prepared to address the issues noted above. In particular, Defendants should be prepared to

18 address Plaintiff’s characterization of their discovery responses with respect to any identifying

19 information regarding the two Doe defendants, as specified in Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 5 to

20 Defendant JLCF. Defendants should also be prepared to discuss what categories of records in

21 their possession, custody, or control, if any, tend to show the identities of the two Doe defendants.

22 Plaintiff should be prepared to address whether his request for subpoena to non-party CFMG can

23 be narrowed to a request for specific documents, obtainable only from CFMG, that will assist

24 Plaintiff in identifying the two Doe defendants.

25 ///

26

27 2 Defendants are reminded that, should they disagree with Plaintiff’s understanding or

characterization of their responses, Defendants are obligated to correct the record or otherwise

28 supplement their responses.

1 | IV. ORDER

2 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

3 1. This matter is SET for a video hearing, via the Zoom videoconferencing application, on

4 Plaintiff's motion for subpoena, (ECF No. 54), on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, at 10:30

5 a.m., before the undersigned;

6 2. Counsel for Defendants is required to arrange for Plaintiffs participation by contacting

7 the litigation coordinator at the institution where Plaintiff is housed to determine whether

8 the institution can accommodate a Zoom video appearance by Plaintiff at this date and

9 time; and

10 3. Plaintiff or counsel for Defendants is unable to attend during this date and time, counsel

11 for Defendants should inform the Court no later than April 27, 2026, by contacting

12 Courtroom Deputy Esther Valdez at evaldez@caed.uscourts.gov or (559) 499-5788 and

13 proposing a new date and time when all parties are available.

14

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Le Zz

16 Dated: _ April 15, 2026 2 Me ZE,

FRANK J. SINGER

7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28