Masterson v. Killen et al

Filing 57

ORDER STRIKING 54 Discovery Document Filed With the Court, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/19/2015. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL MASTERSON, 12 13 14 15 1:11-cv-01179-LJO-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING DISCOVERY DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE COURT (ECF No. 54.) vs. SUZANNE KILLEN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Daniel Masterson (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the 21 Complaint commencing this action on July 18, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds 22 with Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint filed on November 22, 2013, against defendants 23 Suzanne Killen, Velva Rowell, Brad Hall, Michael Fisher, Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez, Kelly 24 Santoro, and Captain Randy Tolson for retaliation, and against defendants Suzanne Killen, 25 Velva Rowell, Brad Hall, Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez, Kelly Santoro, and Captain Randy 26 Tolson for conspiracy to retaliate against Plaintiff.1 (ECF No. 28.) This case is now in the 27 28 1 On June 30, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this action, for failure to state a claim. (ECF. No. 31.) 1 1 discovery phase, pursuant to the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on November 2 14, 2014. (ECF No. 42.) 3 On July 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Objection to 4 Defendants’ Demand, in Part, for Production of Documents, and Request for Postponement of 5 the Taking of Plaintiff’s Deposition.” (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff’s document is not fashioned as a 6 motion to compel discovery or a motion for extension of time directed to the court. Instead, 7 Plaintiff’s document constitutes a response to Defendants’ request for production of documents 8 pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and a request for Defendants to 9 reschedule Plaintiff’s deposition. 10 Plaintiff is advised that discovery documents should be sent to the Defendants, not to 11 the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36. Pursuant to Local Rules, discovery documents including 12 interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, responses, and 13 proofs of service, "shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the 14 document or proof of service is at issue." L.R. 250.2(c), 250.3(c), 250.4(c). Here, there is no 15 indication that a proof of service or any discovery document is at issue in this case.2 Therefore, 16 Plaintiff's response to Defendants’ request for production of documents shall be stricken from 17 the record as improperly filed. 18 Plaintiff also requests that Defendants postpone the date they have scheduled for 19 Plaintiff’s deposition. This request is directed to Defendants and not to the court, and the 20 request should not have been filed with the court. 21 discovery, including the scheduling of depositions, between the parties, without court 22 intervention, until such discovery is at issue. The parties are expected to conduct Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Objection to 23 24 Defendants’ Demand, in Part, for Production of Documents, and Request for Postponement of 25 /// 26 27 28 2 In the event that Defendants fail to make disclosures or to cooperate in discovery, Plaintiff is referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 which governs motions to compel. Plaintiff should also refer to the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order filed on November 14, 2014 for information about conducting discovery. 2 1 the Taking of Plaintiff’s Deposition,” filed on July 14, 2015, is STRICKEN from the record as 2 improperly filed. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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?