Thompson v. The State of California et al

Filing 109

ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's Discovery Responses signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/5/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAHN G. THOMPSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(Doc. 108.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Rahn G. Thompson (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 5, 2007.

20

(Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on

21

November 10, 2009, against defendant Tucker for subjecting Plaintiff to adverse conditions of

22

confinement; against defendants Tucker, Green, Lee, Rincon, Hernandez, Deathridge, and

23

Huckabay for failing to protect Plaintiff; against defendants Tucker, Green, and Huckabay for

24

retaliation; and against defendants Tucker, Thompson, and Melendez for using excessive force

25

against Plaintiff. (Doc. 25.)

26

This case is currently in the discovery phase. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed his

27

responses to Defendants’ request for production of documents. (Doc. 108.)

28

///
1

1

II.

DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

2

Plaintiff is reminded that the parties to an action are expected to conduct discovery

3

among themselves pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without court intervention,

4

unless an issue arises under Rule 37(a).1 Under Local Rules, discovery documents such as

5

interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admissions, responses, and proofs of

6

service thereof shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the request,

7

response, or proof of service is at issue. L.R. 250.2(c), 250.3(c), 250.4(c) (emphasis added). At

8

this stage of the proceedings, none of the parties’ discovery documents are at issue. Thus,

9

Plaintiff should not have filed his discovery responses with the court. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

10

discovery responses shall be stricken from the court’s record.2

11

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ discovery requests, filed on

12
13

December 4, 2013, are STRICKEN from the court’s record.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

18
19
20

December 5, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party propounding discovery may
seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or
incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(3).
2

28

When a document is stricken, it becomes a nullity and is not considered by the court for any

purpose.
2