ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel. Plaintiff has submitted two subpoenas to produce documents, information, or objects or to permit inspection of premises, directed to the California Board of Registered Nursing and the California Medical Board. Plaintiff seeks documents and information regarding the licensing of Leslie R. Schmidt, and whether there are any past disciplinary proceedings against Leslie R. Schmidt.

Proper reliance on a subpoena duces tecum is limited by the relevance standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) ("[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense"), and considerations of burden and expense set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)1 and 45(c)(1). In addition, this court has required that a motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum be supported by: (1) clear identification of the documents sought and from whom, and (2) a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party. See e.g. Davis v. Ramen, 2010 WL 1948560, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Williams v. Adams, 2010 WL 148703, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

Plaintiff's proposed subpoenas are inadequate for several reasons. First, the document requests are not sufficiently specific. Second, if the "Leslie Schmidt" for whom plaintiff seeks documents is the same as defendant Schmidt, plaintiff may obtain the information sought by using the regular discovery process. For example, plaintiff may propound interrogatories or a request for production of documents to defendant Schmidt. Third, licensing information for health care professionals in California is provided on the internet at no charge. Department of Consumer Affairs, BREEZE, https://www.breeze.ca.gov. This website also reflects public record actions for the licensee, such as administrative disciplinary actions and court orders. For example, see defendants' Exhibits B and C submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion for Rule 35 examination. (ECF No. 77 at 66-70.)

If the "Leslie Schmidt" is not the same person as defendant Schmidt, plaintiff fails to explain the relevance of the documents sought.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the subpoenas (ECF No. 66 at 3-8) shall be placed in the court file and disregarded.