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)
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?