Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06794/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06794-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAPOLEON SANDEFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES PLUMMER, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06794 SBA (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S

PENDING MOTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion Extending Time for Discovery." For the reasons

outlined below, Plaintiff's motion (docket no. 64) is DENIED in part as unnecessary and also

DENIED in part as premature.

In this motion, Plaintiff claims that after he received Defendants' motion for summary

judgment, he attempted to "uptain [sic] some for of discovery through the Freedom of Information

Act from the Sheriff's Dept., to no avail." (Pl.'s Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that it is "almost

impossible to argue facts on issue's [sic] you don't have information on, therefore [he is] motioning

to Court to demand . . . discovery" because he is "without any documents of evidence not even [his]

complaint against Defendants . . . ." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff explains that his "discovery [requests]

consist of Alameda Co. Sheriff Dept. Policy and Procedures reguarding [sic] religious holidays, staff

repremanding [sic], grievance procedures, and a hearing on [his] grievances, also all 27 grievances

and grievance responses, Plaintiff's complaint, chaplins [sic] dutys [sic], inmate service's duty, floor

dupty [sic] sutys [sic] durning [sic] religious holidays, sheriff's dutys [sic], inmate service records

for contracted volunteers in 2005 . . . ." (Id.)

As mentioned above, also pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary

judgment. The Court will resolve the motion for summary judgment in a separate written Order. 

The Court notes that attached as exhibits to Defendants' motion are some of the items listed as

Plaintiff's discovery requests, including the policies and procedures as well as the grievances filed

by Plaintiff that are relevant to the issues in the motion for summary judgment. 

Case 4:06-cv-06794-SBA Document 66 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

26

27

28

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.06\Sandeford6794.denyEOTdiscovery.wpd 2

The record shows that Defendants sent Plaintiff copies of Defendants' motion and the

exhibits when the motion was filed on December 4, 2009 and again on January 19, 2010. (Proof of

Service re Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment at 1; Second Proof of

Service re Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment at 2.) Furthermore, the

Clerk of the Court has mailed copies of the original complaint and the amended complaint to

Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff's "Motion Extending Time for Discovery" is DENIED in part as

unnecessary because he should have received the aforementioned documents. 

As to Plaintiff's remaining discovery requests, the Court has previously denied his requests

as overly broad in its January 14, 2010 Order, stating:

Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among

themselves should they ask the Court to intervene in the discovery process. The

Court does not have the time or resources to oversee all discovery and therefore

requires that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements. To

promote this goal of addressing only very specific disagreements, federal and local

discovery rules require the parties to meet and confer to try to resolve their

disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B);

N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1. Plaintiff may meet and confer with Defendants in

writing. If Plaintiff's discovery requests are denied by Defendants and he intends to

file a motion to compel, he need only send a meet and confer letter to Defendants to

that effect, offering them one last opportunity to provide him with the sought-after

information. 

Here, similarly, because Plaintiff's remaining discovery requests are overly broad on their face and

the parties have not exchanged meet and confer letters about them, Plaintiff's "Motion Extending

Time for Discovery" relating to those requests is DENIED as premature.

The Court further notes that the briefing schedule in the Court's January 14, 2010 Order is

still in place. No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent

circumstances. 

This Order terminates Docket no. 64.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/20/10 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06794-SBA Document 66 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

26

27

28

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.06\Sandeford6794.denyEOTdiscovery.wpd 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAPOLEON SANDEFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES PLUMMER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-06794 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 21, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Napoleon Sandeford AJQ254 / UJH289

Glen Dyer Facility

550 6th Street

Oakland, CA 94607

Dated: January 21, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-06794-SBA Document 66 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 3