Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00250/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00250-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAD RUDOLPHO ANGLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY 

MEDICAL CENTER; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-250 SI

ORDER 

Plaintiff filed a motion for initial disclosure and discovery. Defendants reported in

response to the motion that they already made their initial disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(1) in June 2007. Plaintiff did not dispute that assertion or otherwise reply to

defendants' response. Defendants will not be ordered to repeat their initial disclosure. To the

extent plaintiff wants other discovery, he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The court does not conduct discovery on behalf of litigants and court permission

is not required for plaintiff to conduct his own discovery. Therefore, the motion for initial

disclosure and discovery is DENIED. (Docket # 90.)

The court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved

when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and

responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the court. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that "must not" be filed with the

court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the parties

have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even

Case 3:07-cv-00250-SI Document 92 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not have enough

time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it

only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific

disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the

parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is

a prisoner, the court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and

defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format

of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties

must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in any

discovery dispute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-00250-SI Document 92 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 2