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)

Download PDF
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-

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?