ORDER REGARING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SUBPOENAS

(Document 112)

DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Dana Gray ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on September 12, 2013. The action is proceeding against Defendants Mundunuri, Ziomek, Rebel, Romero, Comelli and Loadholt for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligence.

Defendant Rebel's motion to dismiss is pending and the discovery has opened as to the remaining Defendants.

On August 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting "subpoena forms" and asking various questions relating to subpoenas in general. Plaintiff attached inmate appeals and inmate requests for interviews that appear to be seeking copies of appeals and/or staff complaints.

Plaintiff is informed that the Clerk's Office will issue a subpoena only upon order of the Court. If Plaintiff is seeking documents from Defendants, she must seek documents from via a request for the production of documents, not a subpoena duces tecum. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

Further, Plaintiff is placed on notice that the Court will authorize the Clerk's Office to issue a subpoena duces tecum commanding a third party to produce documents only if (1) Plaintiff is unable to obtain the documents directly from Defendants and (2) she thereafter files a motion to compel which results in a determination that he is entitled to the documents but Defendants lack possession, custody, or control over them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d) (parties have a duty to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on person subject to subpoena and courts are required to enforce this duty) (quotation marks omitted); Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 862 (9th Cir. 2014) (district courts have "wide discretion in controlling discovery.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

IT IS SO ORDERED.