Moore v. Rodriguez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Bernard G. Skomal (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved for an order allowing the issuance of a third-party subpoena to the CDCR prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. The court granted the motion, finding that good cause existed because the records were critical to case resolution and necessary for a productive ENE.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion for Third Party Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference“Accordingly, having considered the parties’ Joint Motion and for good cause shown, the parties Joint Motion for Third Party Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) conference (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for early discovery. The parties provided specific reasons (critical to resolution, necessary for ENE) that satisfy the low threshold for good cause in the context of a joint motion. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate rule and a relevant district court case for the standard of review. However, it is extremely brief and does not elaborate on why the specific facts (CDCR records) constitute 'good cause' beyond quoting the parties' assertions. While the result is defensible and likely correct given the joint nature of the motion, the reasoning is minimal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Nathaniel MOORE, Case No.: 20-cv-01481-BAS-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 26(f) 14 Jesse RODRIGUEZ; CONFERENCE Elizabeth RODRIGUEZ; and 15 DOES 1–10, 16 [ECF No. 39] Defendants. 17 On July 6, 2021, the parties jointly moved for an order allowing the issuance of a 18 subpoena to a third party prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). (ECF No. 39.) This case involves Plaintiff’s allegations that the 20 Defendants wrongfully obtained Plaintiff’s prison psychiatric records from the California 21 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and used them in a mediation, while 22 Defendants deny wrongfully obtaining any records. (Id. at 1.) The parties claim that good 23 cause exists for an order allowing the issuance of a third-party subpoena prior to the Rule 24 26(f) conference since “obtaining the CDCR records are critical to any potential resolution 25 of this case” and that “obtaining the [CDCR] records before the ENE is necessary for a 26 productive ENE.” (Id. at 2.) 27 /// 28 1 2 “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred 3 required by Rule 26(f), except [. . .] when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or 4 ||by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In order to justify issuance of an early subpoena, 5 ‘“‘good cause” must be shown. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 16cv444-GPC-BGS, 6 ||2016 WL 1618227, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2016). 7 Accordingly, having considered the parties’ Joint Motion and for good cause shown, 8 || the parties Joint Motion for Third Party Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) conference (ECF No. 9 ||39) is GRANTED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: July 9, 2021 p / / 12 on. Bernard G. Skomal 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28