Robert Garber v. Mohammadi et al

Filing 123

ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL 109 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiff Robert Garber's motion to compel the disclosure of certain evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. 109 is denied. (lc). Modified on 7/16/2014. (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT GARBER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
MOHAMMADI, #36506,
Lead-officer for the Los
Angeles Police Department:
et al.,

16
17

Defendants.
___________________________

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

Case No. CV 10-07144 DDP (RNBx)
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL
[Dkt. No. 109]

18
19

Presently before the court is Plaintiff Robert Garber

20

(“Plaintiff)’s motion to compel the disclosure of certain evidence

21

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (Dkt. No. 109). The

22

matter has been briefed. Having considered the parties’ submissions

23

and heard oral argument, the court adopts the following Order

24

denying the motion.

25

In this motion, Plaintiff moves that the court compel

26

Defendants to produce certain documents and information and issue

27

unspecified sanctions due to Defendant’s failure to so. The

28

requested documents and information are: the name and address of a

1

witness who has been designated Jane Doe; notes from officers who

2

were in communication with Jane Doe; notes, declarations,

3

audio/video recordings interviews with Jane Doe; names and contact

4

information for acquaintances of Plaintiff, “Alberta” and “Berna,”

5

who Plaintiff asserts were witnesses to his arrest on August 7,

6

2010; notes, field-cards, audio-recordings of interviews with these

7

witnesses; and Defendant Hamed Mohammadi’s age. (Motion at 2.)

8
9

Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. The discovery cut-off date in
this case was April 14, 2014. (Dkt. No. 101 at 2.) As the court

10

explained in its February 11, 2014 Scheduling Order, “[a]ll

11

discovery motions must be heard prior to the discovery cut-off

12

date.” (Id. at 1.) Because the instant motion to compel disclosure

13

of evidence was not filed by the discovery cut-off date, the motion

14

will be denied as time-barred.

15

Even if the motion were timely, it would be denied on the

16

merits. Plaintiff has asserted that Defendants have failed to

17

produce the records listed above in their Rule 26 disclosures.

18

However, Defendant states that the records are not and have never

19

been in the police’s possession or control and Plaintiff has not

20

provided any basis on which to doubt Defendant’s representation on

21

this issue. Moreover, as to the request for Defendant’s age,

22

Plaintiff has provided no explanation as to why that information is

23
24
25
26

///

27

///

28
2

1

relevant to this case and the court does not perceive any basis for

2

its relevance.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated: July 16, 2014
7

DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3