Luckert v. Smith

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 30 Motion to Compel. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2021)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 MICHAEL L LUCKERT, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 19-cv-08204-PJH ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL v. O. SMITH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 30 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, a former detainee, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. The court ordered service on September 3, 2020, and defendants 15 appeared on December 9, 2020. Presently pending is plaintiff’s motion to compel. 16 Plaintiff states that he sent discovery requests on August 1, 2020, to various city and 17 county agencies, but has not received a response. Docket No. 30 at 7. He seeks to 18 compel the discovery requests. However, plaintiff submitted the discovery requests 19 before the court ordered service or defendants had appeared. The motion to compel is 20 denied without prejudice. Now that defendants have appeared in this action, plaintiff 21 should again seek the discovery. 22 Plaintiff is advised that the court generally is not involved in the discovery process 23 and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery 24 responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the 25 parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery 26 requests and responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the 27 proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery 28 dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even consider 1 asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not have the 2 resources to oversee all discovery, and so requires that the parties present to it only their 3 very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific 4 disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires 5 that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking 6 court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. The motion 7 (Docket No. 30) is DENIED without prejudice. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2021 10 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District 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

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?