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)

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