Foy v. Vallejo Police Department

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/30/2013 DENYING 31 Motion to Compel. The parties may propound additional discovery requests within the next 60 days. Any discovery requests propounded within the next 60 days shall be responded to according to the time set forth in the scheduling order, 45 days after the request is sent. Any necessary motion to compel shall be filed within 15 days after the response deadline. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALFRED JAMES FOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

ORDER

VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

15

Defendant.

16

/

17
18

No. CIV S-11-3262-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel1 (Doc. 31).

19

Plaintiff is requesting the court compel the defendants to provide supplemental

20

responses to his request for initial disclosures. He argues the defendants’ objections to his

21

requests were deficient and evasive.

22

Defendants argue in opposition that plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to

23

bringing this motion, and plaintiff’s discovery requests were propounded under the wrong Rule

24

and were therefore improper. In addition, defendants argue the information requested is not

25
1

26

The court notes the defense has also filed a motion to compel, which will be
addressed by separate order.
1

1

discoverable.

2

Generally, discovery may be obtained “regarding any matter, not privileged,

3

which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

26(b)(1). A motion to compel may be brought where the answers provided in response to a

5

discovery request are evasive or incomplete. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(3)(B), (4).

6

Here, plaintiff apparently attempted to engage the defendants in discovery by way

7

of requesting initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a). As the defense points out, “an action

8

brought without an attorney by a person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state

9

subdivision” is exempt from initial disclosures. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(1)(B)(iii). Plaintiff’s

10

attempts to obtain discovery under this rule therefore are inappropriate.

11

The court finds the discovery requests under Rule 26’s requirement for initial

12

disclosure inappropriate. Thus, the motion to compel will be denied on that basis. Plaintiff will,

13

however, be provided an opportunity to propound discovery requests under the appropriate rule.

14

For example, if plaintiff seeks production of documents pursuant to Rule 34, he should propound

15

specific requests pursuant to that Rule.

16

In addition, the court cautions plaintiff as to the discovery he requests. In an

17

apparent attempt to comply with plaintiff’s original request, defendants responded to plaintiff

18

that his requests were unclear, overbroad, and requested privilege information. The specific

19

objections are not addressed in this order as it is not necessary. However, the court notes that at

20

least to some extent, the defendants’ objections would likely be sustained. As the defense

21

argues, a request for all complaints against all officers may be overbroad and have relevancy

22

issues. To the extent plaintiff is requesting documents pertaining to individuals other than the

23

defendants to this action, those documents would not likely be discoverable. Therefore, plaintiff

24

would be advised to tailor his requests to requesting those documents related to his claims in this

25

case.

26

///
2

1

Finally, the court notes that the defense requests the court issue a protective order

2

for documents ordered produced. As no documents are being ordered produced at this time, that

3

request is moot. However, the parties are advised that if a new request for production of

4

documents is propounded, and a protective order is necessary, the parties shall attempt to resolve

5

that issue prior to bringing it to the court’s attention. If a protective order is necessary, the

6

appropriate motion should be filed.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 31) is denied;

9

2.

The parties may propound additional discovery requests within the next 60

3.

Any discovery requests propounded within the next 60 days shall be

10

days;

11
12

responded to according to the time set forth in the scheduling order, 45 days after the request is

13

sent; and

14
15

4.

Any necessary motion to compel shall be filed within 15 days after the

response deadline.

16
17
18
19

DATED: September 30, 2013
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3