Moore v. Rodriguez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Nathaniel MOORE, Case No.: 20-cv-01481-BAS-BGS Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING JOINT v. MOTION FOR THIRD PARTY

DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 26(f) Jesse RODRIGUEZ;

CONFERENCE

Elizabeth RODRIGUEZ; and

DOES 1–10, [ECF No. 39]

Defendants.

On July 6, 2021, the parties jointly moved for an order allowing the issuance of a subpoena to a third party prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). (ECF No. 39.) This case involves Plaintiff’s allegations that the Defendants wrongfully obtained Plaintiff’s prison psychiatric records from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and used them in a mediation, while Defendants deny wrongfully obtaining any records. (Id. at 1.) The parties claim that good cause exists for an order allowing the issuance of a third-party subpoena prior to the Rule 26(f) conference since “obtaining the CDCR records are critical to any potential resolution of this case” and that “obtaining the [CDCR] records before the ENE is necessary for a productive ENE.” (Id. at 2.)

“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred required by Rule 26(f), except [. . .] when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In order to justify issuance of an early subpoena, ‘“‘good cause” must be shown. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 16cv444-GPC-BGS, 2016 WL 1618227, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2016).

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2021 p / / on. Bernard G. Skomal United States Magistrate Judge