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)

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