Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02680/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02680-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

- 1 - 06cv2680

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER M. SHAW, Civil No. 06-CV-2680-IEG (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

AND OTHER DISCOVERY

RESPONSES

[Doc. #31]

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ALPINE

SANITATION DISTRICT, SAN DIEGO

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, and DOES 1

THROUGH 100,

Defendants.

A discovery conference was scheduled in this matter on September 9, 2008 regarding

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production or Inspection of Documents and Other Discovery

Responses. Said discovery dispute was submitted on the papers.

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendants to: (A) sign and return “Plaintiff’s Amended

Request for Admissions, Set One, to Defendants County of San Diego, Alpine Sanitation District,

San Diego Floor Control District and Defendants’ Amended Responses Thereto”; (B) produce the

complete records in Defendants’ possession and control related to this action; and (C) submit

amended responses to “Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set

Two.” After careful review of the parties’ filings, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

A. Amended Requests for Admission

Plaintiff seeks signed amended requests for admission from Defendants following a meet and

confer on April 25, 2008. Defendants have since provided Plaintiff with these documents on August

Case 3:06-cv-02680-MMA-POR Document 36 Filed 10/09/08 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 06cv2680

20, 2008. As such, this request is moot and the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

B. Production of Documents

Plaintiff contends Defendants have failed to produce all documents related to this matter. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks production of the following documents: (1) documents in purported

possession of Defendants allegedly showing Defendants’ intention to pay Plaintiff $360,000 for an

easement and (2) documents in purported possession of Defendants relating to the grant deed and

ownership of Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff alleges there are approximately twenty boxes holding

such documents. Defendants response is that they have not yet been served with a Request for

Production.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party may serve on any other party a request

to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the requestor’s behalf, to

inspect and copy, any designated documents, or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible

things which constitute or contain matters within the provision of the Rules governing the scope of

discovery and which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is

served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling

production provided the party submitted a request under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(iv). 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks the documents identified, he shall submit a Request for

Production to Defendants. The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s request for production of

documents without prejudice.

C. Amended Responses

Plaintiff seeks amended responses to “Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set Two, and

Special Interrogatories, Set Two.” Defendants contend, and Plaintiff admits, that the parties have

not met and conferred regarding this discovery dispute.

Per Local Rule 26.1, the Court shall entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless counsel have previously met and conferred concerning

the disputed issue. Moreover, Rule 37(a)(1) provides that a party may move for an order compelling

discovery provided the movant certify that he has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with

Case 3:06-cv-02680-MMA-POR Document 36 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 06cv2680

the person or party failing to make discovery. 

Based thereon, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2008 

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez

all parties

Case 3:06-cv-02680-MMA-POR Document 36 Filed 10/09/08 Page 3 of 3