Valencia v. C.D.C.R.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff Christopher G. Valencia 90 days to identify the Doe Hospital Director named in his § 1983 action. The Court authorized Plaintiff to use discovery, a subpoena, or other means to learn the defendant’s identity and file a notice of substitution. The Court stated that failure to identify and substitute the defendant within 90 days would result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice.

Holdings

1. When a defendant's identity is unknown before filing, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the defendant unless it is clear that discovery will not uncover the identity or that the complaint will be dismissed on other grounds. Because neither exception applied, Plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery concerning the Doe Hospital Director's identity.
2. Plaintiff may seek a subpoena duces tecum or use other means to obtain the Doe defendant's identity, but any subpoena request must clearly identify the documents sought and show that the records are obtainable only from the identified third party, while accounting for relevance, burden, and expense.
3. Plaintiff was granted ninety days to discover the Doe Hospital Director's identity and file a notice of substitution; failure to do so would support a recommendation that the Doe defendant be dismissed without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff should be allowed limited discovery to identify the unknown Doe Hospital Director.
2. Whether Plaintiff could use a subpoena duces tecum or other discovery mechanisms to obtain information needed to identify and serve the Doe defendant.
3. What deadline and consequence should apply if Plaintiff failed to identify and substitute the Doe defendant.

Disposition

other