ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS AND TO SERVE SUBPOENAS, GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY FILING FEES Docket nos. 56, 57, 59, and 62

VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Jeremy Pinson and Mikeal Stine, inmates at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the violation of their constitutional rights by staff at Pelican Bay State Prison in California. J. Frisk is the only defendant who has been served.

I. Issues Regarding Subpoenas

On July 14, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for three subpoena duces tecum for the production of documents from third parties, namely the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Federal office of the Inspector General. The Court cautioned that Plaintiffs must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which sets out the rules for issuing, serving, protesting and responding to a subpoena duces tecum. The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to send three blank subpoena forms to Plaintiffs "for them to fill out completely and return to the Court so that the subpoenas may be issued by the Clerk and returned to them so that they may serve them."

On August 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the Clerk to send the blank subpoena forms to them. This motion is denied as moot because in their next motion, filed on August 4, 2014, Plaintiffs submit their completed subpoena forms and move the Court to serve them via the United States Marshal.

Plaintiffs' August 4 motion is denied for several reasons. Plaintiffs' subpoenas are directed at three agencies whose offices are in Washington, D.C. The subpoenas request the agencies to produce to Plaintiffs at their Florence, Colorado address, "all information in any format which it exists [sic], created or maintained by your agency involving complaints or investigations related to Jeremy Pinson or Mikeal Stine." This request is overbroad. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). Plaintiffs may not request all information about themselves. They may only request information which is relevant to this lawsuit. Therefore, the request for information must be revised.

Second, the Court cannot order the United States Marshal to serve these subpoenas. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2), a subpoena may command the production of documents and other information at a place 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person. This Court, which is in the Northern District of California, lacks jurisdiction to order the United States Marshal to serve subpoenas on agencies located in Washington, D.C., which command them to produce documents to Plaintiffs in Florence, Colorado. This Court can issue the subpoenas when properly filled out by Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs must serve the subpoenas themselves.

Plaintiffs refer to the Court's July 14, 2014 Order as authority for its request for the Court to serve the subpoenas. However, in its Order, the Court stated that when Plaintiffs submitted properly completed subpoenas, the Court would issue them and return them to Plaintiffs so that Plaintiffs may serve them. See Cramer v. Target Corp., 2010 WL 179118, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2010) (discussing procedure for serving subpoenas); also see Sherman v. McDaniel, 333 F.Supp.2d 960, 971-72 (D. Nev. 2004) (suggesting that proposed subpoenas should be revised to be issued by a federal district court with subpoena power over the entities holding the documents).

The cases Plaintiffs cite are not applicable to this situation. In United States Marshal Service v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1055 (8th Cir. 1984), the Eighth Circuit held that, where the United States is a party to an action, it may be compelled to expend federal funds for fees and expenses of witnesses subpoenaed by indigent civil litigants. In Jackson v. Brinker, 147 F.R.D. 189, 193 (S.D. Ind. 1993), the issue was whether the subpoena commanded the production of proper information. These issues are not relevant to the main issue here, which is whether this Court has the authority to serve subpoenas on third-parties who are thousands of miles away from this forum and order them to produce documents to Plaintiffs who are thousands of miles away from where the third-parties are located.

Therefore, the motion is denied. The Clerk shall again send to Plaintiffs three blank subpoena forms for Plaintiffs to fill out with more particularity. Upon receiving properly completed forms, the Clerk shall issue them and return to Plaintiffs for them to serve on the third parties.1

II. Motion to Compel

On August 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Frisk to respond to their June 18, 2014 discovery request. This motion is granted, in part. The Court notes that, on August 15, 2014, Frisk filed a notice of change in counsel and new counsel has requested an extension of time to file a dispositive motion. It is possible that new counsel has not had time to review and respond to Plaintiffs' discovery request. Therefore, counsel is directed to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery request within a reasonable time. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion that any objections Frisk may have are waived.

III. Frisk's Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive Motion

On August 15, 2014, Frisk moved for a second extension of time to file his dispositive motion. Good cause is shown and the motion is granted. The dispositive motion is now due on October 27, 2014 and Plaintiffs' opposition is due twenty-eight days thereafter. Frisk shall file a reply fourteen days after Plaintiffs file their opposition

IV. Frisk's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Filing Fees

On April 4, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay collection of the filing fee. On July 14, 2014, the Court issued an Order directing Frisk to file a response to the motion within twenty-one days from the date of the Order. Frisk has not filed his opposition. Because Frisk has new counsel, good cause may have prevented him from filing a timely response. The Court now provides Frisk twenty-one additional days from the date of this Order to respond to Plaintiffs' motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs' motions to compel issuance of subpoenas and for the Court to serve subpoenas are denied. Doc. nos. 56 and 57. With this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall send three blank subpoena forms pertaining to the production of documents to Plaintiffs for them to fill out completely and return to the Court so that the subpoenas may be issued by the Clerk and returned to Plaintiffs so that they may serve them.

2. Plaintiff's motion for Frisk to respond to their motion to compel discovery is granted, in part. Doc. no. 62.

3. Frisk's second motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion is GRANTED. Doc. no. 59. Frisk's dispositive motion is due October 27, 2014. Plaintiffs' opposition is due within twenty-eight days after the motion is filed. Frisk's reply is due fourteen days thereafter.

4. Frisk's response to Plaintiffs' motion to stay collection of fees is due twenty-one days from the date of this Order. Plaintiffs may file an opposition within fourteen days thereafter.

5. This Order terminates docket number 56, 57, 59 and 62.

IT IS SO ORDERED.