(PC) Khouanmany v. Alencastre

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY, No. 2:17-cv-1326-TLN-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with claims arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). She has filed a document entitled “Request for Production of Documents” and “Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum.” ECF No. 98. Plaintiff must, however, serve her requests for production on defense counsel rather than filing them with the court.1 See E.D. Cal. Local Rules 250.2-250.4. And before the court will order the U.S. Marshal to serve a subpoena duces tecum, plaintiff must first demonstrate that the requested documents are not equally available to her and not obtainable from the defendant through a properly served request for production.

25 ///// ///// Pursuant to the court’s discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 96), written requests for discovery must be served no later than September 27, 2019.

1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs “Request for Production of | Documents” is disregarded and her “Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum” (ECF No. 98) is || denied without prejudice.

4 | DATED: August 13, 2019. tid, PDEA 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE