Baker v. Solano County Jail et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/15/2011 ORDERING that pltf's 43 motion to compel is DENIED as premature; and dfts' 44 request for sanctions is denied. (Yin, K)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JERRY W. BAKER,
No. 2:10-cv-1208 FCD KJN P
C/O J. SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On March 22, 2011,
plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to produce documents. On March 25, 2011,
defendants filed an opposition and a request to sanction plaintiff for his alleged repeated
violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
“Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five days after the
request is served.” (Dkt. No. 27 at 5.)
Plaintiff claims he has requested documents from the defendants three times, but
that defendants have failed to respond. However, plaintiff did not provide a copy of any of the
requests for production of documents. Conversely, defendants state plaintiff propounded the
requests for production of documents on March 8, 2011 and March 11, 2011. (Dkt. No. 44 at 1.)
Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on March 22, 2011. As to the requests propounded on March
8 and 11, 2011, defendants’ responses are not yet due pursuant to the court’s December 2, 2010
discovery and scheduling order. (Dkt. No. 27 at 5.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is premature
and is denied.
The court turns now to defendants’ request for sanctions based on plaintiff’s
violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants point out plaintiff’s first violation
occurred when he filed a motion to compel production of documents before serving the initial
request for production on defendants. (Dkt. No. 34.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion to compel
discovery responses prior to the deadline for answering the discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 43.)
Plaintiff is advised that discovery is a process where he must first serve discovery requests on
counsel for defendants, then he must wait for the 45 days’ response time to elapse prior to
seeking court intervention. Because plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, the court will deny
defendants’ request for sanctions at this time. However, plaintiff is cautioned that further
violations may result in an order imposing sanctions, including, but not limited to, an order
requiring payment of defendants’ expenses, or a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) & (C).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s March 22, 2011 motion to compel (dkt. no. 43) is denied as
2. Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied.
DATED: April 15, 2011
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?