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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?