United States of America v. Molen et al

Filing 127

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/17/13: Defendant's filings at Docket Numbers 125 and 126 are construed as motions to compel discovery and are denied. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-02591 MCE KJN PS

v.

13

JAMES O. MOLEN et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

Defendant James Molen (“defendant”) is proceeding without counsel in this

17

action.1 On December 26, 2012, defendant filed a document styled as a “Notice of Stipulation

18

Request For Meet And Confer Plan For Discovery.” (Dkt. No. 125.) On January 9, 2013,

19

defendant filed a document styled as a “Joint Disagreement Notice Of Meet And Confer Plan For

20

Discovery.” (Dkt. No. 126.)

21

While the purpose of these filings is unclear, the documents appear to raise issues

22

pertaining to discovery in this case. To the extent the filings were intended as motions to compel

23

discovery, however, they are denied.

24

First, the filings fail to comply with the rules governing discovery motions.

25
1

26

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule
302(c)(21). (See Dkt. No. 11.)
1

1

Previously, defendant has completed several filings styled as “Motions to Compel” (e.g., Dkt.

2

Nos. 48-49), which were denied without prejudice to refiling based upon defendant’s non-

3

compliance with the rules governing discovery motions. (Orders, Dkt. Nos. 65, 124 (informing

4

defendant that future failures to comply with such rules would result in motions being summarily

5

denied).) These most recent filings suffer from the same deficiencies described in the

6

undersigned’s prior orders, and are therefore summarily denied.

7

Second, and more crucially, discovery motions are no longer permissible in this

8

action given that the deadlines for conducting discovery and for filing discovery motions have

9

passed. (See Orders, Dkt. Nos. 76, 122 (“All discovery shall be completed by October 4,

10

2012”).) The discovery period in this case is closed. To the extent defendant’s filings were

11

intended as motions to compel discovery, then, such motions are untimely.2

12

Accordingly, the undersigned construes defendant’s filings at Docket Numbers

13

125 and 126 as motions to compel discovery and denies the motions. As defendant has been

14

informed numerous times in this case, even though he is proceeding without counsel he is

15

obligated to familiarize himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Eastern District of

16

California Local Rules. Pro se litigants are afforded a degree of leniency with respect to their

17

pleadings, but they are nonetheless required to comply with the rules of litigation procedure.

18

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). As he has been advised previously (e.g.,

19

Orders, Dkt. Nos. 65, 124), defendant’s failures to comply with the rules of litigation procedure

20

may subject him to sanctions, and improperly-filed motions may be summarily denied.3

21
22
23
24
25
26

2

No party has sought modification of the discovery period set out in the Scheduling Order
(Dkt. No. 76), which was left unchanged when the assigned district judge amended the Scheduling
Order (Dkt. No. 122).
3

Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be ground for dismissal, judgment by
default, or other appropriate sanction. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local
Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or
Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).
2

1
2
3
4

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendant’s filings
at Docket Numbers 125 and 126 are construed as motions to compel discovery and are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 17, 2013

5
6
7

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3