Johnson v. United States of America et al

Filing 218

Order by Hon. James Donato denying 217 Motion. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Re: Dkt. No. 217

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court has received plaintiff’s filing about various discovery issues. Dkt. No. 217. In

13

light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court construes the filing as a request to terminate the referral

14

of discovery disputes in this case to Magistrate Judge Vadas. The request is denied for lack of any

15

cause, let alone good cause or other solid reason.

16

The Court also construes the motion as objections to Magistrate Judge Vadas’ October 16,

17

2015 discovery order (Dkt. No. 212) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Plaintiff

18

appears to object to the decision to deny his requests for: (1) the production of recordings of “two

19

phone calls to the police dispatch number,” (2) the production of “the small police car,” and (3) a

20

subpoena to Dr. Yu. Dkt. No. 217 at 1-2. The objections are overruled.

21

Plaintiff cites no support for his contention that the “Defendant admits that these calls are

22

recorded,” Dkt. No. 217 at 1, and does not explain how the Magistrate Judge erred relying on

23

defendant’s statements that no such recordings were found in its investigation. See Dkt. No. 212

24

at 3. Plaintiff also fails to show any error in the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the police car is

25

no longer in defendant’s control and cannot be produced. Dkt. No. 217 at 1; see Dkt. No. 212 at 3.

26

Plaintiff is incorrect that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 does not require a court reporter; Dr.

27

Yu cannot be compelled to provide written responses under the Rule. Dkt. No. 217 at 1; see Fed.

28

R. Civ. P. 31(a)(3) (“The notice must also state the name or descriptive title and the address of the

1

officer before whom the deposition will be taken”); Fed R. Civ. P. 31(b) (requiring the officer

2

“proceed in the manner provided in Rule 30(c), (e), and (f)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(3) (“the officer

3

must record the testimony.”) Because the October 16, 2015 order is neither “clearly erroneous”

4

nor “contrary to law,” plaintiff’s objections are overruled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

5

On a separate note, the Court is concerned about the tone and content of some of plaintiff’s

6

statements in the discovery filing. The standards of civility and courtesy required of all persons

7

that appear before the district court apply to pro se litigants. It is not acceptable to make personal

8

attacks in court filings on the Judges of this district or other parties and counsel. The Court has no

9

evidence that any Judge or party in this case has engaged in impermissible ex parte
communications or other unethical conduct, and plaintiff’s accusations are not well taken.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff is advised that any future filings that include personal attacks on the parties, lawyers or

12

Judges will be stricken, and may result in an order requiring the Court’s permission before

13

plaintiff is allowed to make further filings in this case.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2015

16
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2