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)

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