Anderson v. California Department of Correction et al

Filing 24

ORDER REGARDING 23 FILING OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 2/17/2021. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2021)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
Case 4:20-cv-04368-HSG Document 24 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT D. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. Case No. 20-cv-04368-HSG ORDER REGARDING FILING OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS Re: Dkt. No. 23 M. MCGALLON, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed a pro se action 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff recently filed with the Court his requests for admissions 15 directed at Defendants. Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff should not file his discovery requests or responses 16 with the Court. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties 17 without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and 18 responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court 19 orders otherwise). The Court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes 20 involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses that they cannot 21 resolve themselves. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/17/2021 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge

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?