Nichols v. Bosco et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING defendant's Motion to strike plaintiff's request for production of documents (doc. 44). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's Motion to allow electronic filing by a party without an attorney (doc. 64). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 11/23/10.(KMG)

Nichols v. Bosco et al

Doc. 66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John-Raymond Nichols, Plaintiff, vs. Michael A. Bosco Jr., et. al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 10-01872-PHX-FJM ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's request for production of documents to the Wells Fargo defendants (doc 37), defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's request (doc. 44), plaintiff's response (doc. 52) and amended request for production of documents (doc. 53), and defendants' reply (doc. 56). The court also has before it plaintiff's motion to allow electronic filing by a party appearing without an attorney (doc. 64). Plaintiff has requested that defendants produce documentation proving that defendants have a beneficial interest in plaintiff's property. Plaintiff's request is premised on his belief that such documentation is required to foreclose on his property. However, as defendants have correctly pointed out, discovery is not proper at this time because the parties have not conferred as required by Rule 26(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. See Rule 26(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. In addition, plaintiff misapprehends the rule of initial disclosures. Rule 26(a)(1)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. does require parties to make initial disclosures, but not until the Rule 26(f) conference, or 14 days after it, unless another time is set by stipulation or court order, which

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is not the case here. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to discovery or disclosures until after the Rule 26(f) conference. In addition, we have reviewed plaintiff's motion to allow electronic filing and do not grant it. Having reviewed plaintiff's complaint and many other filings, we urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a lawyer. We do not believe the issues raised can be adequately handled by a non-lawyer. If plaintiff does not have a lawyer he may wish to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at [phone]. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant's Motion to strike plaintiff's request for production of documents (doc. 44). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's Motion to allow electronic filing by a party without an attorney (doc. 64). DATED this 23rd day of November, 2010.

-2-