Kaufman v. Spearman et al

Filing 61

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 57 Motion for a hearing; denying 59 Motion for Discovery. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOEL DAVID KAUFMAN, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 15-cv-02777-JD ORDER ON MOTIONS v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 59 M. E. SPEARMAN, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a hearing regarding a defendant’s alleged perjury in 15 admissions and interrogatories. Plaintiff did not confer with defendants’ counsel about the 16 allegations, and has not explained the relief he seeks or why is he entitled to Court intervention. 17 The motion for a hearing is denied. 18 Plaintiff has also filed a motion with the Court about discovery requests. Plaintiff is 19 advised that the Court becomes involved in discovery when there is a dispute between the parties. 20 Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without a copy sent 21 to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that “must not” be 22 filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only 23 when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves will the 24 court intervene in the discovery process. To promote the goal of addressing only atypical 25 disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the Court requires that the 26 parties meet 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 prisoner, the 28 Court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel to 1 meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-and-confer 2 process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in a good 3 faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute. CONCLUSION 4 5 6 7 1. Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing (Docket No. 57) and motion for discovery (Docket No. 59) are DENIED. 2. Plaintiff has returned three document subpoenas for the Court to serve. The Clerk shall 8 sign the appropriate portions and provide the subpoenas to the United States Marshal who shall 9 serve, without prepayment of fees, the subpoenas on the defendant listed on each subpoena. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2017 12 13 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JOEL DAVID KAUFMAN, Case No. 15-cv-02777-JD Plaintiff, 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 M. E. SPEARMAN, et al., Defendants. 8 9 10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 That on April 3, 2017, 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. 16 17 18 Joel David Kaufman AT3133 P.O. Box 705 Soledad, CA 93960 19 20 21 Dated: April 3, 2017 22 23 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 24 25 26 27 By:________________________ LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JAMES DONATO 28 3

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?