Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01353-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY EDWARDS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1353 LKK DAD P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this action, has filed a motion for

an order compelling discovery. Plaintiff requests an order compelling defendants to produce

documents for inspection and copying.

It does not appear that plaintiff has served defendants with a request for

production of documents pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is

advised that the parties do not need leave of court to serve discovery requests on each other under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to the Discovery Order filed in this action on

January 9, 2006, responses to properly served discovery requests are due forty-five days after the

discovery request is first served. The parties have been ordered not to file copies of their

discovery requests and responses unless it becomes necessary to make a motion to compel

discovery. If plaintiff serves a discovery request and is dissatisfied with the response served by

Case 2:05-cv-01353-LKK -DAD Document 21 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 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

2

defendants, then he may file a motion to compel discovery. In such a motion, he must set out the

facts concerning his discovery request, the defendants’ response, the reasons for his

dissatisfaction, and legal authority for the order he seeks. A complete copy of the discovery

request at issue, as well as a complete copy of defendants’ response to it, should be attached to

the motion to compel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 25, 2006 motion to

compel discovery is denied without prejudice.

DATED: May 2, 2006.

DAD:13

edwa1353.411

Case 2:05-cv-01353-LKK -DAD Document 21 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2