*1 On April 2, 2023, plaintiff Angel Felipe Aleman (“Plaintiff”) constructively filed[1] a motion requesting issuance of a subpoena directed to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (“Motion”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 86. On April 17, 2023, defendant Riverside County Sheriff's Department Deputy Saidleman (“Defendant”) filed an opposition to the Motion. Dkt. 88. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.

On May 1, 2022, Plaintiff, who is currently an inmate at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, constructively filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. 17. In his sole remaining claim, Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by unleashing a K-9 dog on Plaintiff after Plaintiff was apprehended following his escape from custody on July 18, 2020. Id.

On April 2, 2023, Plaintiff constructively filed the instant Motion. Dkt. 86. Plaintiff seeks issuance of a subpoena directed to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department commanding the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things on or before May 22, 2023. See id. at 9. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks documents relating to: the July 18, 2020 incident underlying the SAC; Plaintiff's alleged resulting injuries; the Riverside County Sheriff's Department K-9 unit's rules, regulations, and policies relating to the “treatment of handcuff[e]d inmates”; Defendant's training on use of force and “how to handle his K-9 dog”; and allegations of excessive use of force against Defendant during his employment as “a K-9 officer.” See id. at 3-6.

On April 17, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition to issuance of the requested subpoena. Dkt. 88.

The matter thus stands submitted.

A. APPLICABLE LAW

A party seeking discovery from a nonparty may obtain a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (“Rule 45”). Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014). Rule 45 provides that a subpoena must be issued and signed by the clerk of court or an attorney authorized to practice in the issuing court. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(3). If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party to the action before the subpoena is served on the party to which it is directed. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(4).

A subpoena directed to a nonparty must be (1) limited in scope; (2) supported by clear identification of the documents sought; and (3) supported by a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party. See Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-CV-1216-AWI-SKO-PC, 2010 WL 1948560, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010).

B. ANALYSIS

*2 Here, the documents sought relate to Plaintiff's claim in the SAC that Defendant violated the Eighth Amendment by unleashing a K-9 dog on Plaintiff on July 18, 2020. See dkt. 86 at 3-6. The subpoena is, therefore, appropriately limited in scope. See Davis, 2010 WL 1948560, at *1. Furthermore, the subpoena clearly identifies the documents sought, and the requested records are obtainable only through the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.[2] See id. Hence, the Court finds the subpoena is appropriately (1) limited in scope; (2) supported by clear identification of the documents sought; and (3) supported by a showing that the records are obtainable only through the identified third party.

Defendant opposes issuance of the requested subpoena based on the time for compliance, Rule 45's geographical limitations, and overbreadth. However, Defendant does not have standing to challenge a subpoena directed to a third party based on the interests of the third party.[3] See Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965, 973-74 (C.D. Cal. 2017); see also In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litig., No. 11-md-2295-JAH (BGS), 2021 WL 3130040, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) (stating a party's standing to challenge a subpoena directed to a nonparty “extend[s] only so far as to assert [its] own interests, not those of the subpoenaed party”).

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.