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)

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