Davis et al v. Hayes et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 55 61 Motions to Compel; directing parties to meet and confer per Rule 37, no later than 11/24/2017; Joint Statement due by 11/28/2017. If discovery dispute is not resolved, Plaintiff to file a motion for discovery by 12/4/2017. Clerk shall note Plaintiff's discovery motion for 12/15/2017. Signed signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Keith Davis, Prisoner ID: 936379)(PM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

KEITH ADAIR DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

WILLIAM HAYES, et al.,

CASE NO. C16-1709-RSM-BAT
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
DISCOVERY AND DIRECTING
PARTIES TO CONFER AS
REQUIRED BY RULE 37

Defendants.

12
13

Keith Adair Davis moves the Court for an order compelling defendants to produce

14

documents in response to his written requests. Dkts. 55, 61. Defendants oppose the motions

15

arguing Mr. Davis has not complied Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), which requires the parties to meet and

16

confer before a discovery motion is filed. Additionally, Mr. Davis seeks additional time for

17

discovery. Dkt. 60. Having considered the pleadings and for the reasons discussed below, the

18

Court DENIES plaintiff’s discovery motions, Dkts. 55, 61 and ORDERS the parties to meet and

19

confer.

20

Before filing a motion to compel discovery, Mr. Davis must make a good faith effort to

21

meet and confer with the allegedly offending party in an effort to resolve any dispute. See Local

22

Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 37(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). These rules help ensure that parties

23

have an inexpensive and expeditious opportunity to resolve discovery disputes and that only
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
DISCOVERY AND DIRECTING PARTIES
TO CONFER AS REQUIRED BY RULE 37 - 1

1

genuine disagreements are brought before the Court. Here there is nothing showing the parties

2

have met and conferred, or even made an attempt to do so. LCR 37(a)(1) provides that a “good

3

faith effort” to confer with a party requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephone.

4

Because Mr. Davis proceeds pro se, the Court notes the following. The scope of

5

discovery is limited to what is relevant to the case. Mr. Davis’ original complaint names 47

6

defendants and several claims. The Court dismissed, Dkt. 30, all claims except for the excessive

7

force claims alleged in paragraph 60 of the amended complaint against (1) Defendant Gorman

8

for acts in August 2014; (2) Defendants McKindrey and Bliss in September 2014; and (3)

9

Defendant Elerick in August 2016. Dkt. 20 at 11. Mr. Davis claims Gorman struck and damaged

10

his ear. Id. at 12. Mr. Davis also alleges McKindrey and Bliss attacked him in his cell, where

11

McKindrey “landed on top of [Mr. Davis] with his full weight,” causing him intense pain. Id. at

12

13. Mr. Davis further alleges that Elerick injured Mr. Davis’ right hand, thumb, small finger, and

13

forearm by smashing it against a metal tray. Id.

14

Because the other claims and defendants were dismissed, this case involves a claim of

15

excessive use of force only against the four defendants named above and which occurred in

16

August and September 2014, and August 2016. Id. Accordingly, discovery should focus on the

17

excessive force claim against the four defendants.

18

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS:

19

1)

The discovery motions, Dkts. 55, 61 are DENIED without prejudice.

20

2)

The parties shall meet and confer as required by Rule 37, no later than November

21

24, 2017, and shall file a joint statement regarding whether the discovery dispute has been

22

resolved by November 28, 2017.

23

3)

If the discovery dispute has not been resolved, the joint statement shall set forth

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
DISCOVERY AND DIRECTING PARTIES
TO CONFER AS REQUIRED BY RULE 37 - 2

1

with specificity exactly what matters are in dispute. If the discovery dispute is not resolved, Mr.

2

Davis shall also file a motion for discovery limited to what matters are specifically in dispute by

3

December 4, 2017, and explaining why discovery should be granted. Defendants may respond as

4

allowed under the local rules. The Clerk shall note Mr. Davis’ discovery motion for December

5

15, 2017.

6

4)

7

If the discovery dispute has not been resolved, and briefing is required, as noted

above, the Court will extend the date by which discovery must be completed.

8

5)

The clerk shall provide the parties with a copy of this order.

9

DATED this 9th day of November, 2017.

10

A

11

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
DISCOVERY AND DIRECTING PARTIES
TO CONFER AS REQUIRED BY RULE 37 - 3