Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225-2/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

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

 All Counsel of Record 1 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE GARCIA,

CDC #H-74821,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GRIMM, et alii,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

COMPEL (Doc. No. 87) and

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF AN EXPERT WITNESS (Doc.

No. 97)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeking documents from Defendants. (Doc. No.

87.) However, as discussed at the Status Conference held on August 3, 2007, his request is premature. 

Plaintiff must first request the documents from Defendants. (Doc. No. 95.) FED. R. CIV. P. 34 As

stated before and iterated at the Status Conference, the Court will not micro-manage item by item the

parties’ discovery requests. Plaintiff must send his requests directly to Defendants, and if disputes then

come to light, the parties should make a serious tête-à-tête effort to resolve them. If the disagreements

prove intractable, only then should the parties contact the Court.

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for the Appointment of an Expert Witness, which relies on Federal

Rule of Evidence 706. (Doc. No. 97.) He declares expert witnesses are necessary “to clarify important

issues under consideration.” (Id. at 2.) Rule 706 permits, but does not requires, the Court to “appoint

any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties... or witnesses of its own selection.” FED. R. EVID.

706(a). Appointment may be appropriate when "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge

will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue...." Ledford v. Sullivan,

105 F.3d 354, 358-59 (7th Cir.1997). Here, the issues are not particularly complex. Morever, Plaintiff

truly desires a partisan expert to advocate his position, not a neutral expert to enlighten the court.

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 98 Filed 08/16/07 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

27

28

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

 All Counsel of Record 2 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint an expert; Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 16, 2007

 Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 98 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 2