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
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?