Wood et al v. Contra Costa County

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 27, 2021. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:21-cv-00611-MMC Document 43 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 1

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANDREA WOOD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 21-cv-00611-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

v.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's motion, filed April 23, 2021, titled "Discovery
Requested." Having read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.
To the extent plaintiff seeks an order requiring any party in the above-titled case to

16

provide her with discovery, the motion is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiff's

17

first seeking discovery from defendants. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (setting forth

18

procedure by which party can seek documents in another party's possession).

19

To the extent plaintiff seeks an order requiring the state court conducting the

20

dependency proceedings to provide plaintiff with "all evidence, all testimony, [and] full

21

case files" (see Pl.'s Mot. at 1), the motion is hereby DENIED, as the Court lacks

22

jurisdiction to reverse the state court's denial of plaintiff's motion for such documents (see

23

Pl.'s Mot. Exs. A and B). See Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of

24

Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296–97 (1970) (holding district courts "possess no

25

power whatever to sit in . . . review of state court decisions").

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2021
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge