Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06854/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06854-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURELIO M. SEPULVEDA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES, 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

CV F 03 6854 OWW SMS 

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL (DOC. 33) TO BE A

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

AND FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 35)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with a civil action. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules

72-302 and 72-304.

On February 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a request for

production of documents which was docketed as a motion for

production of documents. Review of the document reveals that it

was not a motion. Thus, the Court DEEMS Plaintiff’s document

docketed as document number 33 to be a request for production of

documents that was directed to a party, and not a motion. Thus,

no action of the Court is required in response to this filing.

On May 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document that was both a

Case 1:03-cv-06854-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 06/01/05 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

notice of motion and motion to compel production of documents,

and a request for a subpoena duces tecum to a nonparty. Defendant

filed opposition on May 10, 2005.

The Court notes that Defendant’s motion to dismiss the

second amended complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary

judgment, which was filed on November 3, 2004, remains pending

before the District Judge. 

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the

disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both

the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir. 1992). Further, except in exceptional cases or when

otherwise authorized by rule or agreement of the parties, a party

may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have

conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). In

addition, the Court is authorized to organize and schedule the

process of discovery pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and (f).

In the present case, because there has been no resolution of

the pending motion to dismiss brought by Defendant, the pleadings

are not quiet. Because of the stage of the pleadings, the Court

is unable to determine basic matters germane to discovery, such

as the issues in the case and the scope of discovery. Because of

the pendency of a motion to dismiss, there has been no conferring

pursuant to Rule 26(f) or scheduling conference for arranging

disclosure and discovery. Therefore, discovery would be

premature. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of

documents and a request for a subpoena duces tecum to a nonparty

Case 1:03-cv-06854-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 06/01/05 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

ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling after the Court’s

determination of the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in

the alternative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06854-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 3