Trevino v. Dotson et al

Filing 64

ORDER ON MOTIONS by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 49 Motion to Compel; granting 55 Motion to Stay. (Certificate of Service Attached)(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT TREVINO,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-05373-PJH
ORDER ON MOTIONS

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 49, 55
E. DOTSON, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff proceeds with a pro se civil rights action. Presently pending are two

14

discovery related motions and defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

15

(“IFP”) status. Defendants filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status on December 27,

16

2016. On February 1, 2017, plaintiff submitted a partial filing fee of $350. However, in

17

addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee

18

of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court

19

Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014)). The additional $50 administrative fee does

20

not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. Because it appears that plaintiff

21

wishes to proceed without IFP status as a paid litigant, and because he was not charged

22

an initial filing fee, he must pay an additional $50. If plaintiff pays the additional $50, the

23

motion to revoke IFP will be denied as moot. Plaintiff shall pay the additional $50 by

24

March 10, 2017. If plaintiff does not pay, the court will look to the merits of the motion.

25

Plaintiff is also informed that the $350 he has paid cannot be refunded even if

26

defendants’ motion is denied.

27
28

Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel on December 12, 2016. The motion
involves subpoena requests made to non-defendants in October and November 2016.

1

However, defendants did not appear in this action until November 16, 2016, or later. The

2

motion to compel is denied as the requests were not made to defendants in this action.

3

Plaintiff should send his discovery requests to defendants’ counsel.1
Defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery pending ruling on the motion to

4
5

revoke IFP. Defendants note that they have already responded to 68 discovery requests

6

of various types and plaintiff served 28 more requests. Defendants also attempted to

7

settle the discovery dispute with plaintiff prior to filing this stay. A district court has broad

8

discretion to stay discovery pending the disposition of a dispositive motion. See Panola

9

Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985); Scroggins v. Air
Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir. 1976); Hovermale v. School Bd. of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Hillsborough County, 128 F.R.D. 287, 289 (M.D. Fla. 1989). But it is an abuse of that

12

discretion to stay discovery if plaintiff is denied discovery that relates to the motion. See

13

Scroggins, 534 F.2d at 1133.
Here, the discovery requests do not involve the pending motion to revoke plaintiff’s

14
15

IFP status. Therefore, the motion to stay discovery is granted. However, the stay is in

16

effect until plaintiff pays the remaining $50 or the court rules on the motion to revoke IFP

17

status and the case were to continue.
Plaintiff is also informed that the court generally is not involved in the discovery

18
19

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

20

discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged

21

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

22

discovery requests and responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are

23

used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a

24

discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even

25

consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not have

26

enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties

27
1

28

It appears from other motions that plaintiff has now been sending discovery requests to
the appropriate parties and defendants have responded to dozens of requests.
2

1

pre
esent to it only their ve specific disagreem
o
ery
ments. To p
promote the goal of addressing
e

2

only very specific disagre
eements (ra
ather than becoming a oversee of all disc
an
er
covery), the

3

urt
s
arties meet and confer to try to re
t
esolve their disagreem
r
ments
cou requires that the pa

4

bef
fore seekin court inte
ng
ervention. See Fed. R Civ .P. 37
S
R.
7(a); N.D. C Local R
Cal.
Rule 37.

5

Wh
here, as here, one of the parties is a prisone the cour does not require in-p
t
er,
rt
person

6

me
eetings and instead all
d
lows the prisoner and defense co
ounsel to m
meet and co
onfer by

7

tele
ephone or exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-a
e
o
A
f
and-confer process

8

cha
anges, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties m
e
must engage in a good
e

9

fait effort to meet and confer befor seeking court interv
th
c
re
vention in a discovery dispute.
any

10

CONCLU
USION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

1. To proceed with this case as a paid litigant, pla
e
aintiff shall p an add
pay
ditional $50

12

by March 10, 2017. If plaintiff does not pay th fee, the court will lo to the m
s
his
ook
merits of the
e

13

mo
otion to revo IFP sta
oke
atus.

14

2. Plaintiff’s motio to comp (Docket No. 49) is D
on
pel
DENIED.

15

3. Def
fendants’ motion for a stay (Dock No. 55) is GRANTE
m
ket
ED. The st is in
tay

16

eff
fect until pla
aintiff pays the remaining $50 or t court ru
the
ules on the motion to r
revoke IFP

17

sta
atus and the case were to continu
e
e
ue.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Febru
uary 10, 201
17

20
21
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

22
23

\\can
ndoak.cand.circ9
9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2
2015\2015_05373
3_Trevino_v_Do
otson_(PSP)\15-c
cv-05373-PJH-di
iscovery.docx

24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2

UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT

3

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA

4
5

ROBERT TR
REVINO,

Case No. 1
15-cv-05373
3-PJH

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

7
8

E. DOTSON, et al.,
s.
Defendants

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
Dis
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
That on February 10, 2017, I SE
n
ERVED a tr and corre copy(ies) of the attac
rue
ect
)
ched, by
pla
acing said co
opy(ies) in a postage paid envelope a
d
addressed to the person(s hereinafte listed, by
s)
er
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.

16
17
18

Robert Trevino ID: J-6436
67
Sal
linas Valley State Prison D4-#130L
n
P.O Box 1050
O.
0
Sol
ledad, CA 93960

19
20
21

ated: Februar 10, 2017
ry
Da

22
23

Su
usan Y. Soon
ng
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict

24
25
26
27

By
y:_________
___________
_______
N
Nichole Peric Deputy Cle to the
c,
erk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N

28
4