ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the First Amended Complaint for Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Does #1-3, Pruitt, Magana, and Davis for deprivation of basic necessities; against Defendants Cogdill, Scaiffe, Quinones and Davis for excessive force; and against Defendants Bardonnex and Williams for depriving Plaintiff of yard time. (Docs. 11, 17, 19, 24.)

Plaintiff filed two motions for subpoena duces tecum. (Docs. 41, 53.) Defendants filed an opposition to the first of Plaintiff's motions to which Plaintiff replied. (Docs. 43, 46.) Defendants did not file an opposition to the latter of Plaintiff's motions. The motions are deemed submitted. L.R. 230(l).

II. PARTIES' POSITIONS

In his motions, Plaintiff seeks subpoenas duces tecum to issue requesting numerous documents.1 (See Docs. 41, 53, P's 1st & 2nd Mot. for SDTs.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motions should be denied because they are untimely under the discovery and scheduling order (Doc. 43, Ds' Opp., 1:1-14); because his subpoena is improperly formatted under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (id., at 2:15-22); and because Plaintiff's requests are overbroad and seek documents that are privileged and irrelevant (id., at 2:23-12). Plaintiff responds by arguing that the Attorney General cannot properly bring the opposition on behalf of an entity that is not a party to this action and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the arguments raised by Defendants since they filed an opposition rather than a motion to quash. (See Doc. 46, P's Reply.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 45 permits issuance of subpoenas for discovery from nonparties equivalent to discovery from parties under Rule 34. See Adv. Comm. Note to 1991 Amendment to FRCP 45. Rule 34 governs discovery of designated documents, electronically stored information, and designated tangible things subject to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Meeks v. Parsons, 2009 WL 3003718, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Fahey v. United States, 18 F.R.D. 231, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1955). Rule 26(b)(1) establishes the scope of discovery, stating in pertinent part:

Accordingly, under Rule 34, the test for admissibility is the relevance of the requested material or information. Id., (citing Weahkee v. Norton, 621 F.2d 1080, 1082 (10th Cir.1980); White v. Jaegerman, 51 F.R.D. 161, 162 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Ceramic Corp. of Amer. v. Inka Maritime Corp., Inc., 163 F.R.D. 584 (C.D.Cal.1995)).

"The law [of discovery] begins with the presumption that the public is entitled to every person's evidence." Richards of Rockford, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 71 F.R.D. 388, 389 (N.D.Cal.1976). A nonparty may be compelled to produce documents and tangible things as provided in Rule 45. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c). Assuming that the subpoena is properly constituted and served, Rule 45 requires the subpoena's recipient to produce the requested information and materials, provided the issuing party "take[s] reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) and (d)(1).

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has the right to subpoena documents from a third party that are relevant to the claims upon which he is proceeding in this action.

A. Timeliness of Plaintiff's motions for subpoenas duces tecum

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motions for subpoenas duces tecum are untimely. (Doc. 43, Ds' Opp., 2:1-14.) Defendants cite cases from other district courts to argue that Rule 45 subpoenas are subject to the discovery deadlines in the discovery and scheduling order. (Id.) However, the discovery and scheduling order dictates that the parties respond to discovery requests propounded by their opponent; it does not seek to modify the deadlines by which a third party must respond to requests. Thus, non-parties responding to a subpoena must be allowed only a reasonable time to comply. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45(d)(3)(A)(i). Thus, Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's motions for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum are untimely lacks merit.

B. Improper Format

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff's motions should be denied because they are not formatted in compliance with Rule 45. (Doc. 43, Ds' Opp., at 2:15-22.) If this action were being pursued by a represented plaintiff and counsel had issued the subpoena that Plaintiff attached to his motions (see Doc. 41, P's 1st Mot. for SDT, p. 11; Doc. 53, P's 2nd Mot. for SDT, p. 2), Defendants' argument would have merit. However, since Plaintiff is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the subpoenas he submitted will not be utilized; rather the Court will prepare and issue the subpoenas. Thus, Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's motions should be denied because he did not properly fill out the subpoena form likewise lacks merit.

C. Privileged and Irrelevant Documents

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motions should be denied because his requests seek documents that are privileged and irrelevant. (Doc. 43, Ds' Opp., at 2:23-12.) Plaintiff replies that Defendants cannot object to issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum because they do not represent the entity on whom he seeks to have the subpoenas served.

Ordinarily, a party cannot object to a subpoena duces tecum served on a nonparty, but rather must seek a protective order or move to quash. Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 636 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Schwarzer, Tashima, & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, & 11:2291 (2005 rev.); see also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden of quashing or objecting to a subpoena duces tecum is generally on the person to whom the subpoena is directed. See Sullivan v. Dickson, 283 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1960); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2) and (3). However, that general rule is extended to parties where "the party claims some personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought." Atlantic Inv. Management, LLC v. Millennium Fund I, Ltd., 212 F.R.D. 395 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (quoting Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 9A Civil 2d § 2459 at 41 (1995 ed.).

Defense counsel correctly acknowledges that he does not represent CDCR. (Doc. 43, Ds' Opp., 2:26-27.) He also correctly asserts that the subpoenas requested by Plaintiff are objectionable on grounds of privilege and relevance. (Id.) However, defense counsel does not address each individual request with the required specificity. Rule 34(b) specifically requires that each request be addressed and that if the requested inspection is not allowed, an objection and the reasons for the objection "shall be stated." The objecting entity must state specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction of federal discovery rules, each question is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden. Klein v. AIG Trading Group, Inc., 228 F.R.D. 418, 422 (D. Conn. 2005). Objections must be made with sufficient specificity in accordance with Rule 34; objections that are not sufficiently specific, such as statements that requests are overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive, are waived. Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Here, Defendants' objection of overly-broad and privileged are raised as a general principle and are not raised in reference to a specific request.2 (See i.e. Doc. 43, 3:1-7.)

Despite the inadequacy of Defendants' opposition, the Court is wont to allow discovery of clearly privileged correctional officers' information to inmates, or to allow wholesale release of records to inmates because oppositional ineptitudes. The below restating of the limited number of Plaintiff's requests that will be allowed was undertaken in an effort to preserve Defendants' clearly privileged information, to preserve the safety and security of the institution,3 and yet to allow Plaintiff to obtain information which is relevant to the claims upon which he proceeds in this action.

D. Allowed Requests

A subpoena duces tecum will issue within 15 days requesting production of copies reflecting the following:

Plaintiff's request for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum is GRANTED IN PART. Two subpoenas will issue4 — one to the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and one to the Custodian of Records of the Inspector General ordering production of documents responsive to the above requests. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1), this order serves as notice to the parties that the United States Marshal will be directed to initiate service of the subpoenas following the passage of fifteen days from the date of service of this order.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.