Smith v. Davis et al

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND TO STAY DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/10/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 No. C 07-4089 JSW (PR) LYNNARD SMITH, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND TO STAY DISCOVERY Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 STEVEN G. DAVIS, (Docket Nos. 57) 14 Defendant. / 15 16 This is a civil rights action filed by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 17 against Steven G. Davis, a correctional officer at Plaintiff’s former prison. Plaintiff claims 18 that Davis retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. Defendant’s motion to 19 dismiss the complaint for lack of exhaustion was denied following remand from the United 20 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Defendant’s motion for summary 21 judgment was recently filed and is currently pending. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel 22 discovery and Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery, both of which are opposed by the 23 other party. 24 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. First, has failed to comply with the 25 requirement to meet and confer with Defendant to attempt in good faith to resolve his 26 discovery requests prior to filing such a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). He mailed a letter 27 to Defendants, but it was before receiving Defendants’ timely response to his discovery 28 request. After receiving the request, he filed the motion without any further attempt to meet 1 and confer regarding his dissatisfaction with their response. Secondly, the discovery he 2 seeks to compel is based on a request that is exceedingly overbroad. He requests all 3 documents concerning “retaliation, misconduct, mistreatment, unnecessary use of force, 4 falsification of documents” by Defendant. There are no claims of excessive force, 5 falsification, or misconduct other than retaliation in this case, and there are no claims 6 involving any other inmate. As such, documents concerning these issues could not 7 reasonably lead to admissible evidence. For these reasons, the motion to compel is DENIED. 8 Plaintiff is entitled to discovery that is relevant to dispute Defendant’s argument that there 9 are no factual issues material to the questions of their liability or qualified immunity on 10 Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. Consequently, Defendant’s motion to stay all discovery is 11 DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 10, 2013 14 15 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LYNNARD A. SMITH, Case Number: CV07-04089 JSW Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 8 9 v. 10 STEVEN G. DAVIS et al, 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 15 16 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on January 10, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 17 18 19 20 21 Lynnard A. Smith D89280 CSP Solano P.O. Box 4000 Vacaville, CA 95696 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: January 10, 2013 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?