Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03706/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03706-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROL JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

VARGAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03706-HSG (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Plaintiff has filed a “motion to produce documents.” Plaintiff is advised that the court 

generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a 

dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses 

normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy being sent to the court. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 5(d)(1) (listing discovery requests and responses that “must not” be filed with the court 

until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). In sum, plaintiff must send

discovery requests directly to defense counsel and not to the court.

To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements (rather than becoming 

an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve 

their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local 

Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a prisoner, the court does not require in-person 

meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or 

exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of 

the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before 

seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute.

Case 4:17-cv-03706-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

The “motion to produce documents” is DENIED because there is no indication that 

plaintiff served a discovery request on defendants or that the meet-and-confer process was 

accomplished before the motion was filed. The parties must pursue the meet-and-confer process 

before the court will entertain any motion to compel. Should plaintiff believe a motion to compel 

is necessary in the future, plaintiff must include a copy of the request for discovery in his motion 

to compel, and must include a certification that describes, in detail, plaintiff’s efforts to meet and 

confer, as well as defendants’ responses. The parties are reminded that they must put forth a good 

faith effort to resolve discovery disputes and shall be thorough and specific in their 

communications with each other.

This order terminates Docket No. 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/26/2018

Case 4:17-cv-03706-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/26/18 Page 2 of 2