Cook v. City of Antioch et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting 44 MOTION for Discovery filed by David L. Cook, Sr. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/13/2020. Reset Deadlines as to 43 MOTION to Compel. Response to opposition due by 11/9/2020. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2020)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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID L. COOK, Plaintiff, 8 MARCOS TORRES, et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER v. 9 10 Case No. 19-cv-01370-PJH Dkt. No. 44 12 13 Plaintiff, a former detainee, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff argued 15 that he did not receive answers to many interrogatories. Defendants filed an opposition 16 to the motion to compel on September 14, 2020. Defendants noted that there had been 17 an error, and they would be responding to additional interrogatories, so long as they did 18 not violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not filed any response with 19 the court. 20 Plaintiff shall file a response with the court by November 9, 2020, regarding the 21 motion to compel with respect to defendants providing more interrogatory answers. If 22 plaintiff still wishes to proceed with the motion to compel, he should set forth what 23 specific discovery requests or interrogatories he seeks to compel. He should indicate 24 why he is entitled to the discovery and why defendants’ response was inadequate. 25 Plaintiff should only seek discovery that is relevant to this action. It appears that the 26 relevant issue is if plaintiff was on probation at the time of the arrests. Plaintiff must 27 demonstrate why discovery requests regarding other issues such as defendants’ salaries 28 or benefits is relevant. 1 Plaintiff has also requested subpoenas. The court will send plaintiff two document 2 subpoena forms (subpoena duces tecum) and plaintiff may choose to use them. If he 3 uses them, plaintiff should fill out the subpoenas and return them to the court so that the 4 clerk may issue the subpoena and the United States Marshal may serve it on the 5 subpoenaed party. Plaintiff needs to fill in all of the necessary information but must leave 6 the signature line blank so that the clerk may sign it. This is because as a pro se litigant, 7 plaintiff needs the court’s clerk to issue a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). 8 For the foregoing reasons: 9 1. Plaintiff shall file a response with the court by November 9, 2020, regarding the 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 motion to compel as set forth above. 2. Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 44) is GRANTED. The clerk shall SEND plaintiff two document subpoena forms (subpoena duces tecum). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 13, 2020 15 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?