Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02498/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02498-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

 Plaintiff noticed her motion for hearing on October 4, 2007. However, as the court did 1

not have calendar that day, the clerk instructed plaintiff to renotice the matter. Plaintiff did not

respond, presumably because the discovery deadline in this case was October 5, 2007, and all

discovery matters were to be heard by September 20, 2007. Accordingly, the court issued an

order to show cause and set the matter for hearing.

 Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint in this court’s scheduling 2

order filed April 12, 2007 (at p. 2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN TRAVENIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2498 MCE GGH PS

vs.

WOODLAND CITY, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

On September 24, 2007, in response to plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery

responses filed September 12, 2007, this court ordered defendant to show cause why sanctions

should not be imposed for failure to participate in the discovery process, and set the matter for

hearing on October 11, 2007. Defendant timely responded in writing on October 5, 2007, that it 1

had not been served with the subject discovery requests, and informed the court that the

discovery was propounded only upon defendants named in plaintiff’s amended complaint but 2

Case 2:06-cv-02498-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 10/16/07 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

 Plaintiff did not include a copy of her discovery requests with her September 12, 2007 3

motion – these were provided by defendant. The “new” defendants named in, but not served

with, the amended complaint are Barry Munowitch, Michael Graham, Jimmy Stillman, Linda

Schaupp, Paul Hanson, and Amy Cooper.

2

upon whom service of process had not been made. 

3

The parties appeared before the court on October 11, 2007. Plaintiff represented

herself in pro se; defendant City of Woodland was represented by counsel J. Scott Smith.

As explained by the court at the hearing, there is no basis upon which to order any

defendant to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. The only defendant served with the

amended complaint, the City of Woodland, was not served with the subject interrogatories. The

remaining “defendants,” though served with the interrogatories, were never served with the

amended complaint (nor the original complaint). See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Hence, these

individuals are not “parties” subject to the federal discovery rules. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(d) (failure of party to serve answers to interrogatories).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause issued September 24, 2007, is discharged, and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses, filed September 12, 2007, is

denied. 

The parties are reminded that dispositive motions, if any, are to be heard by the

court no later than December 6, 2007; pretrial conference is scheduled for February 8, 2008, and

a jury trial is set for March 31, 2008. Pursuant to plaintiff’s representation at the hearing that the

parties are discussing settlement and/or plaintiff’s withdrawal of the instant action, both parties

are encouraged to resolve these matters as soon as practicable and so inform the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/16/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH5:Trav2498.disch.osc.II

Case 2:06-cv-02498-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 2