Fields v. Rosenthal

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice 45 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/5/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KEVIN FIELDS,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

1:10-cv-01764-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(Doc. 45.)

RICHARD ROSENTHAL, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

I.

BACKGROUND

15

Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

16

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by civil complaint at the Kings

17

County Superior Court on August 11, 2010 (Case #10-C0309). On September 23, 2010,

18

defendant Richard Rosenthal (ADefendant@) removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice

19

of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(b). (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on

20

the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 22, 2012, against Defendant

21

Rosenthal, for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 17.)

22

On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice, with documents

23

attached. (Doc. 45.)

24

II.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

25

AA judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is

26

either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of

27

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

28

questioned.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). AA court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party
1

1

and supplied with the necessary information.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). The court may take

2

judicial notice of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D.

3

Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981). AJudicial notice

4

is an adjudicative device that alleviates the parties= evidentiary duties at trial, serving as a

5

substitute for the conventional method of taking evidence to establish facts.@ York v. American

6

Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996)(internal quotations omitted); see General

7

Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997).

8

Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of three discovery documents: (1)

9

Declaration of M. Kimbrell in support of privileges and objections to Defendant’s response to

10

Plaintiff’s request for production of documents; (2) Response to Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields’

11

request for production of documents to Defendant Richard Rosenthal; and (3) Response to

12

Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields’ request for admissions to Defendant Richard Rosenthal. (Doc. 45.) .

13

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to take judicial notice of discovery

14

documents. Plaintiff merely requests the court to take judicial notice of the documents, without

15

further explanation. As a rule, the parties are not permitted to file discovery documents with

16

the court. The parties to an action are expected to conduct discovery among themselves

17

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without court intervention, unless an issue

18

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

19

requests for production, requests for admissions, responses, and proofs of service thereof shall

20

not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the request, response, or proof of

21

service is at issue. L.R. 250.2(c), 250.3(c), 250.4(c) (emphasis added). At this stage of the

22

proceedings, discovery is closed in this action and none of the parties’ discovery documents are

23

at issue.2 To the extent that Plaintiff intends to submit the discovery documents as evidence,

24
25
26
27
28

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

The discovery deadline for this case expired on November 18, 2013, and there are no pending
motions to compel. (Docs. 26, 40; Court Record.)
2

1

the court cannot serve as a repository for the parties= evidence. The parties may not file

2

evidence with the court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question.

3

Therefore, the court finds no good cause to take judicial notice of the discovery documents

4

submitted by Plaintiff.

5

III.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, filed on December 2,

6
7

CONCLUSION

2013, is DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

12
13
14

December 5, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3