# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · April 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380635

## Case

- **Full name:** Joshua Robertson v. John Latorraca Correctional Facility, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 16, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380635

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380635. Public record. Not legal advice.