Kristich v. United States of America et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ORIN KRISTICH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-23-544-R
)
FNU Casady, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro so “Motion to Compel Corporate Disclosure
Statements Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1).” To the extent the motion is premised on
Rule 7.1(a)(2)’s requirement that a party in a diversity action file a disclosure statement,
the motion is denied because this action invokes federal question jurisdiction. To the extent
the motion is premised on Rule 26’s requirement that a party must provide certain initial
disclosures, the motion is denied because it fails to explain why the information sought is
within the scope of discovery.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum. The
Court previously denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to issue a subpoena duces
tecum because many of the requests were overly broad on their face. Plaintiff’s second
motion suffers from the same problem.
The Court recognizes that a civil litigant may subpoena documents from a non- party
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. However, the Court also “has the inherent authority to
review subpoena requests by an unrepresented party proceeding in forma pauperis before
Case 5:23-cv-00544-R Document 159 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
issuing the subpoenas.” Stockton v. Wetzel, et al., No. 3:19-CV-02228, 2025 WL 3126901,
at *1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2025).1 See also Postelmans v. Celander, No. 1:18-CV-214, 2025
WL 	3003141, 	at 	*2 	(D.N.D. 	Oct. 	27, 	2025); 	Richardson 	v. 	Ricard, 	No.
CIVA09CV01609REBMEH, 2010 WL 1957215, at *2 (D. Colo. May 13, 2010).
Plaintiff’s motion seeks documents from two non-party entities. However, as
previously noted, some of the categories of documents appear overly broad on their face.
For example, it is not apparent that requests seeking the “internet history” and “browser
caches” of any person, requests seeking phone or electronic message records without
reference to whether they are related to the incident underlying this case, or requests
seeking information related to non-defendant employees are within the scope of discovery.
Further, 	Defendants 	have 	indicated 	that, 	for 	some 	of 	the 	requested 	categories 	of
information, documents have already been produced or there are no responsive documents
still in existence. See Doc. No. 148 (explaining that surveillance video is not available);
Doc. No. 141 (explaining that facility medical records and other reports have been
produced); Doc. No. 134 (attaching various medical records to Plaintiff’s exhibit list).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum is denied without
prejudice. If Plaintiff re-urges his motion, he should ensure that his document requests are
narrowly tailored to matter that is relevant to the claims or defenses in this case and not
duplicative of information that has already been produced. Plaintiff should also explain
1 Plaintiff was previously granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. No.
10.
Case 5:23-cv-00544-R Document 159 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
why the documents requested are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence and demonstrate that he has made arrangements for the payment of
any costs associated with the preparation or copying of the requested documents. See
Richardson, 2010 WL 1957215, at *3.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17 th day of November, 2025.
Case 5:23-cv-00544-R Document 159 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3