Alexander v. Diaz
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Anand Alexander v. Ralph Diaz (2023-05-12) — reversed in part — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved to enforce a deposition subpoena and compel testimony from an inmate witness who refused to appear. The court denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that the subpoena already compelled attendance and that Rule 37 sanctions were unavailable for nonparty noncompliance with a Rule 45 subpoena.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Enforce Deposition Subpoena and Compel Deposition Testimony of Inmate Witness Jack Miller is denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, the Joint Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that a validly issued Rule 45 subpoena already commands attendance and carries the threat of contempt, making a separate order to 'compel' redundant. Furthermore, the court correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent in Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, which holds that Rule 37 sanctions cannot be imposed on a nonparty for failing to comply with a Rule 45 subpoena. Because the specific relief requested (contempt sanctions under Rule 37) is legally unavailable and the underlying obligation already exists via the subpoena, the motion fails on its face. Denying without prejudice allows the parties to seek appropriate relief (such as a motion to quash or a specific contempt motion under Rule 45(g) if applicable, though the latter is complex for nonparties) or clarify their request. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly distinguishes between the inherent power of a subpoena to compel attendance and the specific sanction mechanisms of Rule 37, which do not apply to nonparties in this context. The court relies on binding Ninth Circuit authority (Sali) to support its conclusion that the requested relief is either already in effect or legally unavailable. The denial without prejudice is appropriate because the parties' request was ambiguous regarding what further action was needed beyond the existing subpoena.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANAND JON ALEXANDER, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00100-CAB-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 v. TO TO ENFORCE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND COMPEL 14 DANIEL PARAMO, et al., DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF 15 Defendants. INMATE WITNESS JACK MILLER 16 [Doc. No. 34] 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Enforce Deposition Subpoena and 19 Compel Deposition Testimony of Inmate Witness Jack Miller, CDCR No. E76017 (the 20 “Joint Motion” or “Jt. Mot.”). Doc. No. 34. For the reasons stated below, the Joint Motion 21 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 22 As set forth in the Joint Motion and supporting exhibits, Jack Miller (“Miller”), who 23 is currently incarcerated at Wasco State Prison, is believed to have knowledge relevant to 24 this case. Jt. Mot. at 2. After obtaining the Court’s leave to depose Miller and other 25 incarcerated witnesses, on January 12, 2021, defendant served a subpoena for Miller’s 26 deposition. Jt. Mot. at 1-2; see also Doc. No 27 (order authorizing depositions of several 27 inmates); Doc. No. 34-1 at 8-11 (subpoena for Miller’s deposition). The subpoena 28 commanded Miller to appear for deposition at Wasco State Prison on March 2, 2021. Doc. 1 || No. 34-1 at 8. Defendant’s counsel, a duly licensed attorney authorized to practice in this 2 ||Court, signed the subpoena. Jd. At the appointed time, counsel, plaintiff, and a court 3 reporter were virtually present for Miller’s remote deposition, but Miller refused to appear. 4 || See Jt. Mot. at 2. Defendant’s counsel made a record of Miller’s nonappearance, including 5 ||that Miller had apparently informed a corrections officer that he would not appear and 6 || “ha[d] nothing to say.” See Doc. No. 34-1 at 23-28. The parties jointly move the Court to 7 “issue an order compelling ... Miller’s attendance and testimony at his deposition or face 8 || contempt-of-court sanctions.” Jt. Mot. at 3. 9 As an initial matter, the Court notes that an order compelling Miller’s attendance at 10 || deposition has already been issued, in the form of the subpoena. “A subpoena under Rule 11 ||45 ... obligates the nonparty to appear at the scheduled deposition at pain of being held in 12 ||contempt.” Sali v. Corona Regional Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9th Cir. 2018); see 13 || also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(i11) (Subpoena commands attendance at deposition); id. at 14 (a)(3) (an attorney authorized to practice in the issuing court may sign the subpoena); id. 15 (g) (specifying contempt sanctions for noncompliance). Further, the Court “may not 16 ||impose ... sanctions [under Rule 37] against a nonparty for asserted noncompliance with a 17 || deposition subpoena issued under Rule 45.” Lugo v. Fisher, No. 1:19-cv-00039-SAB(PC), 18 2020 WL 6381388, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020) (citing Sali, 884 F.3d at 1224). As the 19 relief sought by the parties already exists and other sanctions for Miller’s noncompliance 20 || are not available, it is not clear what further intervention the parties seek from the Court. 21 || Accordingly, the Joint Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If the parties 22 ||choose to re-file the Joint Motion, they must clarify the relief sought from the Court. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 30, 2021 YX) 25 Mfficae % Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 27 28