James v. Lee et al

Filing 86

ORDER Denying 84 Request for Judicial Notice and Request to File Interrogatories filed by Kyle Robert James. Plaintiff is hereby Ordered not to file any further discovery requests on the docket without a court order, unless the discovery requests are in support of or in opposition to a motion seeking relief other than a request to file discovery documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 6/11/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KYLE ROBERT JAMES,

Case No.: 16-cv-01592-AJB-JLB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND REQUEST TO FILE
INTERROGATORIES

BARBARA LEE, et al.,
Defendants.

15

[ECF No. 84]

16
17
18

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice and to file

19

interrogatories. (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the

20

fact that Plaintiff sent interrogatories to defense counsel on June 1, 2018. (Id. at 1.)

21

Plaintiff also requests that the Court “retain” a handwritten copy of interrogatories Plaintiff

22

declares that he sent to defense counsel. (Id. at 1-2) Plaintiff’s requests are DENIED for

23

the reasons discussed below.

24

A.

Request for Judicial Notice

25

If a party requests that a court take judicial notice of a fact, and supplies the court

26

with the requisite information, and if the fact is appropriate for judicial notice, then the

27

court must take judicial notice of it. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) and (c). A fact of which a court

28

can take judicial notice must “not [be] subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is
1
16-cv-01592-AJB-JLB

1

generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and

2

readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.

3

R. Evid. 201(b). A court may not take judicial notice of a fact that is subject to reasonable

4

dispute. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-90 (9th Cir. 2001). Furthermore,

5

“[b]ecause the effect of judicial notice is to deprive a party of an opportunity to use rebuttal

6

evidence, cross-examination, and argument to attack contrary evidence, caution must be

7

used in determining that a fact is beyond controversy under rule 201(b).” Rivera v. Philip

8

Morris, Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Wright v. Brooke Group. Ltd.,

9

114 F. Supp. 2d 797, 815 (N.D. Iowa 2000)).

10

As with Plaintiff’s most recent request (ECF No. 80), Plaintiff’s submission is not

11

appropriate for the taking of judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). “‘[A] high degree

12

of indisputability is the essential prerequisite’ to taking judicial notice of adjudicative

13

facts.” Rivera, 395 F.3d at 1151 (quoting advisory committee note to Fed. R. Evid. 201(a)

14

& (b)). Here, Plaintiff provides the Court with a handwritten copy of interrogatories that

15

Plaintiff represents he sent to defense counsel. (ECF No. 84 at 3-4.) This is not a source

16

“whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”

17

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 84) is hereby DENIED.

18

B.

See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

Request to Retain Copy of Interrogatories

19

Plaintiff requests that the Court “retain” the handwritten copy of interrogatories

20

Plaintiff declares that he sent to defense counsel. (ECF No. 84 at 1.) Plaintiff states that

21

he would like the Court to retain a copy because “Plaintiff has no other way to prove that

22

he in fact actually constructed and sent these questions to defendants [sic] counsel.” (Id.)

23

Plaintiff declares that he has “been having problems with [defense] counsel” and has not

24

received a response to any of his discovery requests. (Id. at 2.)

25

As the Court has previously stated, discovery requests are served upon the

26

responding party, and are not ordinarily filed on the docket (or otherwise “retained” by the

27

Court). The Local Rules provide that interrogatories and requests for production “need not

28

be filed unless and until they are used in the proceedings.” CivLR 33.1. Plaintiff’s
2
16-cv-01592-AJB-JLB

1

discovery requests are not at a point where they are being “used in the proceedings.” If

2

Plaintiff does not receive discovery responses to which he is entitled, Plaintiff can seek

3

recourse from the Court, but must follow the appropriate procedural rules, including

4

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules.

5

This is the second time Plaintiff has attempted to file discovery requests on the

6

docket.

7

ORDERED not to file any further discovery requests on the docket without a court order,

8

unless the discovery requests are in support of or in opposition to a motion seeking relief

9

other than a request to file discovery documents.

10
11

(ECF Nos. 80, 84.)

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff is hereby

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2018

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-cv-01592-AJB-JLB