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
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?