Bearden v. Alameda County

Filing 96

ORDER by Judge Robert M. Illman denying 94 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 95 Motion for Discovery. (rmilc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2020)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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

JEROME A BEARDEN,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO DENY MOTION AS
IMPROPERLY FILED AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 94, 95

13
14

Case No. 18-cv-02495-JSW (RMI)

Pending before the court is the Discovery Letter Brief filed by Plaintiff Bearden containing

15

a motion to: extend discovery and the trial date by 45 days; compel Ms. Donna Ziegler to attend

16

the deposition; and for the court to impose sanctions against Defendants Alameda County and

17

Alameda County Probation Department (dkt. 94). Defendants have also filed a Discovery Letter

18

Brief that serves as a response to Plaintiff’s Brief and Motion to deny his Brief as improperly filed

19

(dkt. 95). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the undersigned’s Standing Order

20

No. 13(a), the court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ request to deny Plaintiff’s motion as

21

improperly filed, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

22

The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to follow the proper procedures prior to and in

23

filing his letter brief. Rule 26(f)(2) requires that the parties meet and confer in a good faith attempt

24

to agree on a proposed discovery plan prior to filing a motion to compel discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

26(f)(2). Additionally, pursuant to the undersigned’s Standing Order, Section No. 13(a), parties

26

are required to attempt to confer on issues of discovery disputes, and after attempting to confer,

27

within five (5) business days “the parties shall file a detailed joint letter” that will “include a

28

description of every issue in dispute, and a detailed summary of each party’s final position on each

1

issue.” See General Standing Order, Section No. 13(a) (effective Aug. 12, 2019) (emphasis

2

added). Plaintiff has failed to follow any of these required procedures. In addition, Plaintiff’s

3

request to extend the discovery and trial deadlines are not properly filed before the undersigned,

4

and should be presented to Judge White.

5
6
7
8

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion (dkt. 95) to deny Plaintiff’s motion (dkt. 94) as
improperly filed is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 3, 2020

9
10
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2