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 ||

, 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