Sayle v. Calaveras County

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 11/16/15 ORDERING that plaintiff's 4 Motion for Expedited Discovery is DENIED. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID SAYLE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-01667-MCE-KJN

v.

ORDER

CALAVERAS COUNTY,

15

Defendant.

16
This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although

17
18

Plaintiff David Sayle has not yet served Defendant Calaveras County (the only named

19

Defendant), Plaintiff has filed the pending Motion for Expedited Discovery. ECF No. 4.

20

Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court authorize expedited discovery “and enter an

21

order, to be served on the named Defendants with Plaintiff’s Complaint,” that directs

22

Defendant to provide the names and addresses of other potential defendants. Id. at 2.

23

Plaintiff’s Motion does not cite any case, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or Local

24

Rule that would authorize such an order. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to perpetuate

25

testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27,1 Plaintiff has not complied with

26

///

27
1

28

But see In re Petition by Ingenuity 13 LLC, No. 2:11-mc-0084 JAM DAD, 2012 WL 968080, at *5
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012) (“It is well-established that Rule 27 is not a vehicle for pre-suit discovery.”).

1

1

the requirements of that Rule. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery is

2

DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: November 16, 2015

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2