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)
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?