Kimmons v. Avilar et al

Filing 114

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 112 Motion for Discovery; denying 113 Motion for Discovery. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRANLETT EUGENE KIMMONS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-00954-JD

ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 112, 113
A. AVILAR,
Defendant.

12
13

Plaintiff proceeds with a pro se civil rights action. Plaintiff has filed two motions that

14

contain discovery requests. Plaintiff is informed that the Court generally is not involved in the

15

discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about

16

discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the

17

parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and

18

responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court

19

orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among

20

themselves should the parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process.

21

The Court does not have the resources to oversee all discovery, and so requires that the parties

22

present to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very

23

specific disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the Court requires that

24

the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention.

25

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a

26

prisoner, the Court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and

27

defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format of

28

the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties must

1

engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in any discovery

2

dispute. Plaintiff’s motions (Docket Nos. 112, 113) are DENIED and plaintiff should seek this

3

discovery from defendants.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2019

6
7
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRANLETT EUGENE KIMMONS,

Case No. 14-cv-00954-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

A. AVILAR,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

14
15
16
17
18

That on March 28, 2019, 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.

19
20
21

Branlett Eugene Kimmons ID: BG3842
44750 60th Street West
Lancaster, CA 93536

22
23

Dated: March 28, 2019

24
25
26

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

27
28

By:________________________
3

1

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4