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