Patton v. Cortez Masto et al

Filing 26

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 15 and 22 Motions for Production of Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/2/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6
KENNETH PATTON,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00519-LDG-PAL

7
Plaintiff,

ORDER

8
v.

(Mtn to Produce Docs – Dkt. ##15, 22)

9
IRA HOLLINGSWORTH,
10
Defendant.
11
2

12
13

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Kenneth Patton’s Requests for Production of

14

Documents (Dkt. ##15, 22).

15

Hollingsworth’s Responses (Dkt. ##20, 23), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #25).

The court has considered the Motions, Defendant Ira

16

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in this civil rights case pro se. Plaintiff filed this action

17

in state court, and on April 7, 2014, Defendants removed it to federal court. See Petition for

18

Removal (Dkt. #1). The court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. #8) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915, finding the Complaint stated claims against Hollingsworth for excessive force and

20

retaliation, and scheduled this case for an inmate early mediation conference. See Screening

21

Order (Dkt. #7); Order (Dkt. #11).

22

unsuccessful. See Minutes of Proceedings (Dkt. #13). Pursuant to the court’s Order (Dkt. #14),

23

the Attorney General filed an Acceptance of Service (Dkt. #18) on behalf of Hollingsworth, who

24

filed an Answer (Dkt. #21) on October 20, 2014.

The mediation was held August 13, 2014, and was

25

On December 4, 2014, the court granted Patton’s request for a scheduling order. See

26

Scheduling Order (Dkt. #24). Discovery closes on March 4, 2015, and dispositive motions are

27

due by April 3, 2015. Id. Once a scheduling order has been entered the parties may engage in

28

discovery. A motion is not the proper means to request written discovery. Discovery requests

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

must be served on opposing parties, who then have thirty days to respond. Plaintiff should
carefully review the discovery rules contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-36, and the Local Rules of
Practice which also apply to this case. A motion to compel may only be filed when a timely
discovery request has been served, the opposing party has not responded or has inadequately
responded, and the moving party has attempted in good faith to resolve any dispute about the
adequacy of the discovery responses without court intervention.
Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party seeking to compel
discovery responses to certify that she has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with
the non-responsive party to attempt to resolve the issue without court intervention. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a)(1). In addition LR 26-7(b) provides that no discovery motion will be considered
unless the movant attaches a statement certifying that, “after personal consultation and sincere
effort to do so,” the parties were unable to resolve the matter. Plaintiff has made no such
certification. Plaintiff’s request is also not supported by a memorandum of points and authorities
as required by LR 7-2(d), which provides that failure to file points and authorities in support of a
motion “shall constitute a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).
Finally, as a general rule, LR 26-8 prohibits filing written discovery papers. However, if
a motion to compel or motion for protective order is necessary, the full text of the discovery
originally requested and the response must be submitted in the motion. See LR 26-7(a).
In short, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to obtain written discovery by motion rather
than complying with the discovery rules. Plaintiff should serve his requests for production of
documents on the appropriate party pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Having reviewed and considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions (Dkt ## 15 &20) are DENIED.
15 & 22
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2015.

26
27

____________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

-2-