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)

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