Ware v. McDonald et al

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/26/15 ordering that plaintiff's 06/22/15 filing 84 is retained in the court record and disregarded. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARTIN WARE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-1505 TLN KJN P

v.

ORDER

M. McDONALD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On June 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a document in the form of a memo or letter, with the

17
18

subject line: “Discovery evidence.” (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff states that he received defendant

19

Hanks’ response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents, but claims he did not receive

20

the “genuineness of documents” or actual copies as requested in the request for admissions1 made

21

to defendant Hanks. However, plaintiff suggests he might not have properly drafted the request

22

or requests.
If plaintiff believes he did not receive a response that he should have, or that his request

23
24

was unclear, he is not precluded from writing to defendants’ counsel in an effort to resolve the

25

misunderstanding. But if plaintiff formally disputes discovery responses, he must file a motion to

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff is advised that requests for admissions are not the proper discovery tool to obtain
documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. Rather, generally, documents are obtained through requests for
production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
1

1

compel discovery if he seeks the court’s ruling on the dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Plaintiff is

2

reminded that discovery closes on July 24, 2015. (ECF No. 75 at 5.)

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 22, 2015 filing is retained

4

in the court record and disregarded.

5

Dated: June 26, 2015

6
7
8
/ware1505.dsc

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2