Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00046/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00046-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.P., a minor who sues by and through )

his father and next friend, )

CHRIS PRICE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:12cv46-CSC

) (WO)

D.A. CREWS, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the court is the “Motion to Open Discovery” (Doc. 5) filed by the plaintiff,J.P.

J.P. requests “leave to conduct limited discovery” before the parties have conferred as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek discovery from any

source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . when

authorized by [the Rules of Civil Procedure], by stipulation, or by court order.” “Although

[Rule 26(d)(1)] does not say so, it is implicit that some showing of good cause should be

made to justify” an order authorizing the commencement of discovery prior to the Rule 26(f)

conference. 8A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2046.1. See

also Qwest Commc’ns. Int'l., Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D.

Colo. 2003) ( “[A] party seeking expedited discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference

has the burden of showing good cause for the requested departure from usual discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00046-CSC Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 2
procedures.”)

As grounds for his motion, J.P. argues that he needs to identify the name of a

Department of Youth Services corrections officer whose name is currently unknown so that

the officer can be added as a defendant. (Doc. 5 ¶¶6-7). However, as J.P. states in his

motion: “[t]here is ample time for discovery to be conducted and for an amended complaint

to be filed that includes the name of the unknown officer and proper charges.” (Doc. 5 ¶ 5).

J.P. has not shown good cause for issuance of an order authorizing immediate discovery.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that J.P.’s “Motion to Open Discovery” (Doc. 5) be and is hereby

DENIED.

Done this 27th day of April, 2012.

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:12-cv-00046-CSC Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 2 of 2