(PC) Cowart v. Rahman, 1:16-cv-00004

Plaintiff, a pro se inmate proceeding in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against several physicians based on an infection treatment.
Plaintiff sought a subpoena duces tecum (Doc. 43) to obtain his medical records from Dignity Health, Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield for treatment related to the infection.
Defendants filed no opposition to the subpoena request; the court treated the filing as a motion for issuance of a subpoena and deemed it submitted.
The court found Mercy Hospital records from January 1, 2012 to the present reasonably likely to be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and authorized production for that time frame.
The court ordered that the subpoena will be issued and served by the U.S. Marshal 15 days after service of the order, and directed defense counsel, within 10 days, to state whether they already have or will obtain the records and will provide copies to Plaintiff to avoid unnecessary subpoena costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff may subpoena nonparty medical records relevant to his Eighth Amendment claim	Cowart seeks Mercy Hospital records for treatment of the infection at issue	No opposition filed; no argument presented	Granted: subpoena authorized for records from Jan 1, 2012 to date
Whether requested scope (time period) is reasonable	Implicitly seeks relevant records (dates not specified)	No opposition; court must determine reasonable period	Court set reasonable scope: past five years to date (Jan 1, 2012–present)
Whether court will order service by U.S. Marshal under Rule 45	Plaintiff requested issuance and service of subpoena	No opposition	Court will prepare subpoena and direct U.S. Marshal to serve in 15 days per Rule 45(b)(1)
Whether parties should avoid duplicative subpoenas/costs	Cowart requests records; court encouraged efficiency	Defense counsel asked to state if they already have/ will obtain records and whether they will provide copies to Plaintiff	Court ordered defense counsel to file statement within 10 days about obtaining/providing records to avoid marshal costs

Fahey v. United States, 18 F.R.D. 231 (S.D.N.Y. 1955) (discovery from nonparties under Rule 45 analogous to party discovery under Rule 34)
Weahkee v. Norton, 621 F.2d 1080 (10th Cir. 1980) (relevance governs discoverability under Rule 34)
White v. Jaegerman, 51 F.R.D. 161 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (scope of discovery tied to relevance standard)
Ceramic Corp. of Amer. v. Inka Maritime Corp., Inc., 163 F.R.D. 584 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (applying Rule 34 relevance test to document requests)
Richards of Rockford, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 71 F.R.D. 388 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (discovery presumption favoring access to evidence)