Fidge v. Lake County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas denying 21 Motion to Compel without prejudice. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (njvlc1, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

RONALD FRANK FIDGE,

Case No. 13-cv-05182-YGR (NJV)

Plaintiff,
9
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 21

Defendants.

13
14

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's motion to compel filed December 20, 2013. (Doc.

15

21.) Defendants County of Lake and Deputy Steve Wright ("Defendants") oppose the motion.

16

(Doc. 25.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion without prejudice

17

to his right to refile the motion in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil

18

Local Rules and the undersigned's Standing Order.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) provides as follows:
On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order
compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the
movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing
to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.
Civil Local Rule 37-1 provides in part that, "[t]he Court will not entertain a request or a
motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, counsel
have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues."
The undersigned's Standing Order, section 12(b) provides as follows:
In the event a discovery dispute arises, counsel for the party seeking discovery shall in
good faith confer in person with counsel for the party failing to make that discovery in an
attempt to resolve the dispute without the Court's involvements, as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Civil L.R. 37-1(a). The meeting must be in person, except
where good cause is shown why a telephone conference is adequate. A declaration setting

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

forth these meet and confer efforts, and the final positions of each party, shall be included
in the moving papers. The Court will not consider discovery motions unless the
moving part has complied with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 and Civil L.R. 37-1.
In the present case, Plaintiff has not provided a declaration regarding his meet and confer
efforts regarding the present discovery requests. The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has
violated section 12(b) of the undersigned's Standing Order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is HEREBY DENIED without prejudice to
Plaintiff's right to refile the motion in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Civil Local Rules and the undersigned's Standing Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that in filing future
motions he must comply with Civil Local Rule 7-2 regarding the noticing of motions. Plaintiff is
directed to seek the assistance of the Court's Pro Se Help Desk, and advised that information
regarding pro se litigation is available on the Court's website.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Dated: January 14, 2013
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2