MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Kenneth G. Gale United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions filed by Plaintiff, all relating to the issuance of a subpoena to by Plaintiff to Ray Roberts, the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections (see Doc. 108, at 3-10). The motions filed by Plaintiff that are resolved by this Order are:
A. “Motion for Intervention re Service of Subpoena to Produce Documents with Request for Telephonic Oral Arguments” (Docs. 103, 104);
B. “Motion for Subpoena Service by U.S. Marshal’s Ofc.” (Doc. 105);
C. “Notice of Subpoena Service by Certified Mail & Request for Order” (Doc. 108); and
D. “Motion for Order Compelling Production of Documents & Telephone Hearing” (Doc. 121).
Also implicated is the “Motion to Quash and Objections to Subpoena” filed by non-party Raymond Roberts, Secretary of Kansas Department of Corrections. (Doc. 118.)
The Court is aware of the procedural deficiencies of Plaintiff’s attempts to execute the subpoena and resulting motions. The Court is also mindful of the limited scope of discovery in the case following the District Court’s Memorandum & Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (See generally Doc. 42.) In that Order, the District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Hughes and denied the motion to dismiss the claims against Defendant Maddox. (Id.) The District Court thus returned the case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge “to conduct discovery limited to the issue of qualified immunity” of the remaining Defendant, Leonard Maddox. Maddox is the correctional officer implicated in Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint who Plaintiff alleges used excessive force on him at the El Dorado Correctional Facility on February 13, 2011. (Doc. 1, at 4.)
Even so, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s subpoena does request some information that is relevant to the limited issue of Maddox’s qualified immunity in regard to the February 13, 2011, incident. In the interest of judicial economy and case management, the Court will address, in turn, the categories of information enumerated in Plaintiff’s subpoena (Doc. 108, at 6-8) and order the production of relevant information, where noted, at no cost to Plaintiff.
1. KDOC IMPPs. The first category lists numerous internal management policies of the Kansas Department of Corrections. Without a discussion of what these policies entail and/or cover, the Court cannot determine whether they are relevant to the limited issue of Maddox’s qualified immunity. As such, the recipient of the subpoena will not be required to produce the documents contained in this category.
2. LCF G.O.s. This category appears to be a list of general orders from the Lansing Correctional Facility. The incident at issue involving Plaintiff and Maddox occurred at the El Dorado Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1, at 4.) As such, information regarding the Lansing Correctional Facility is, without further explanation, per se irrelevant to the issue of Maddox’s qualified immunity during the February 13, 2011, incident. The recipient of the subpoena will not be required to produce the documents contained in this category.
3. EDCF general orders index. This request is arguably relevant as it relates to the El Dorado Correctional Facility. The Court, however, limits the request to the index in effect on February 13, 2011. Such information shall be produced within 30 days of the date of this Order.
4. Plaintiff’s signed refusal for treatment documents. This category is arguably relevant to the extent it is limited to treatment offered as a result of the February 13, 2011, incident. Such information shall be produced within 30 days of the date of this Order.
5. Narratives, sworn statements. This category references Exhibit B to the subpoena (Doc. 108, 10), which includes mention of Plaintiff’s grievance. To the extent the grievance referenced relates to the February 13, 2011, incident, this category is relevant. Such ...