Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00002/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00002-9/pdf.json

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

---

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

Order Addressing Pending Discovery Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\OHaire002disc.wpd 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL D. O’HAIRE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et. al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0002 RMW (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING

DISCOVERY MOTIONS 

(Docket Nos. 77, 78, 81, 82, 83)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Currently, plaintiff has several discovery motions pending before the court that will be

addressed below.

A. Plaintiff’s request for clarification of limited discovery order and motion to compel

discovery

On May 1, 2009, plaintiff filed a pleading alleging that defendant Napa State Hospital

employees were engaging in unfair tactical delays in refusing to respond to his discovery

requests. Plaintiff requests clarification that the court’s September 11, 2008 order, tentatively

limiting discovery to “10 interrogatories per side;” meant 10 interrogatories per defendant.

Contrary to plaintiff’s understanding, the court’s limitation of 10 interrogatories per side

means precisely that. At this time, plaintiff may propound a total of 10 interrogatories to the

*E-FILED - 1/5/10*

Case 5:07-cv-00002-RMW Document 117 Filed 01/05/10 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

Order Addressing Pending Discovery Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\OHaire002disc.wpd 2

defendants -- not 10 interrogatories per defendant -- and a narrowly tailored request for

production of documents. 

Plaintiff is reminded that in order to comply with the requirements of Rule 26, before

deciding to promulgate discovery plaintiff may find it to his benefit to wait until defendants have

filed a dispositive motion which could include some or all of the discovery plaintiff might seek.

In addition, no motion to compel will be considered by the court unless the meet-and-confer

requirement of Rule 37(a)(2)(B) and N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1 has been satisfied. Because

plaintiff is detained, he is not required to meet and confer with defendants in person. Rather, if

his discovery requests are denied and he intends to seek a motion to compel he must send a letter

to defendants to that effect, offering them one last opportunity to provide him with the soughtafter information.

On May 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to compel response to his discovery requests. 

It appears that plaintiff has thus far requested over 100 individual interrogatories. Because the

court has now clarified its September 11, 2008 order limiting interrogatories to 10 per side,

plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to his discovery requests must be DENIED. At this time,

defendants are not required to respond to plaintiff’s requests beyond the stated limited

interrogatories and production of documents.

B. Ex parte motion for leave to initiate limited non-party discovery

Plaintiff requests leave to propound interrogatories and a request for production of

documents upon a non-party. Plaintiff is reminded that federal courts do not conduct discovery

for the parties. The court cannot compel nonparties to provide plaintiff with information but can

order them to produce documents if properly requested. Plaintiff may compel a person who is

not a party to this action to produce documents for inspection and copying pursuant to a

subpoena duces tecum. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), 45(a). In order to do so, plaintiff must fill out

subpoena forms and must ensure that each person is served with the subpoena by a non-party. 

Plaintiff must tender to each person “the fees for one day’s attendance and the mileage allowed

by law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). The current requisite fee for each person is forty dollars per

day, see 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), and cannot be waived for a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. 

Case 5:07-cv-00002-RMW Document 117 Filed 01/05/10 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

Order Addressing Pending Discovery Motions

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.07\OHaire002disc.wpd 3

See Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave

to conduct non-party discovery is DENIED.

C. Motion for sanctions

Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against defendants Weakley and Kessler. Because

defendant Kessler was previously dismissed as a party to this action, the motion is DENIED as

moot as to her. Regarding defendant Weakley, it is unclear exactly what plaintiff complains of. 

It appears that plaintiff requests sanctions against Weakley for transferring plaintiff, however,

the court is unaware of any authority or rule under which plaintiff makes this request. 

Accordingly, without more persuasive and relevant information, the motion is DENIED.

D. Motion to compel response from DRC and Susan Kessler

On May 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to compel former defendants DRC and Susan

Kessler to respond to discovery. Because the court dismissed DRC and Kessler as defendants in

its August 7, 2009 order, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot.

This order terminates docket numbers 77, 78, 81, 82, and 83.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

 United States District Judge

1/5/10

Case 5:07-cv-00002-RMW Document 117 Filed 01/05/10 Page 3 of 3