Rouse v. Hansen et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 18 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Grady J Leupold.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Rusty Rouse, Prisoner ID: 394698)(MW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 11 12 13 RUSTY LEE ROUSE, v. Plaintiff, KEVIN HANSEN, et al., CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05068-TL-GJL ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Defendants. 14 15 The District Court has referred this prisoner civil rights action to United States Magistrate 16 Judge Grady J. Leupold. On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document docketed as a “Motion to 17 Compel Discovery.” Dkt. 18. Upon review, the Court concludes Plaintiff is not attempting to 18 compel discovery, but rather he is attempting to serve discovery requests on Defendants. 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1), “[a] party may serve on any other party a 20 request …to produce[.]” See also Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5 (“[D]iscovery requests and 21 responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceedings or the court orders filing.”). To 22 properly serve his discovery requests, Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests to Defense 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY - 1 1 Counsel. In addition, Plaintiff is advised that his discovery request is premature, as the Court has 2 not yet issued a scheduling order outlining the timeline for discovery. 3 Plaintiff is further advised that, before he may seek a court order compelling Defendants 4 to provide discovery responses, he must comply with the certification requirements outlined in 5 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and expounded by this Court’s Local Rules. 6 Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: 7 . . . On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action. 8 9 10 The Court’s Local Rules provides that if the moving party does not include a certification of a 11 good faith effort to meet and confer, “the court may deny [a motion to compel] without 12 addressing the merits of the dispute.” See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 37(1). The Local Rules 13 further explain that the meet and-confer requirement entails “a good faith conference in person or 14 by telephone to attempt to resolve the matter in dispute without the court’s involvement.” LCR 15 1(c)(6). The certification requirement outlined in these rules is designed to encourage resolution 16 of discovery disputes informally and without court intervention., as discovery motions are 17 strongly disfavored by the Court. 18 19 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 18) is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 9th day of May, 2024. A 21 22 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY - 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?