Luckert v. Brannon et al

Filing 20

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte denying 19 Motion for Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MICHAEL LANDON LUCKERT, Plaintiff, 7 8 v. 9 J. BRANNON, 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY Defendant. / 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court No. C 13-4426 EDL (PR) 12 Plaintiff proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has 13 filed a motion for discovery. Plaintiff is advised that he must send his discovery requests to 14 defendant, not the court. 15 The court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes 16 involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. 17 Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without 18 any copy sent to the court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and 19 responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the 20 court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot 21 resolve among themselves should the parties even consider asking the court to intervene in 22 the discovery process. The court does not have enough time or resources to oversee all 23 discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very specific 24 disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements 25 (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties meet 26 and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See 27 Fed. R. Civ .P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a 28 prisoner, the court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and 1 defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the 2 format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the 3 same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking 4 court intervention in any discovery dispute. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (Docket No. 19) is VACATED and will be disregarded. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: February 10, 2014. ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Chief Magistrate Judge 9 G:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.13\Luckert4426.ord.wpd 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 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?