Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01667/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01667-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SAYLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALAVERAS COUNTY,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-01667-MCE-KJN

ORDER

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although 

Plaintiff David Sayle has not yet served Defendant Calaveras County (the only named 

Defendant), Plaintiff has filed the pending Motion for Expedited Discovery. ECF No. 4. 

Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court authorize expedited discovery “and enter an 

order, to be served on the named Defendants with Plaintiff’s Complaint,” that directs 

Defendant to provide the names and addresses of other potential defendants. Id. at 2. 

Plaintiff’s Motion does not cite any case, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or Local 

Rule that would authorize such an order. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to perpetuate 

testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27,1 Plaintiff has not complied with 

///

 1

 But see In re Petition by Ingenuity 13 LLC, No. 2:11-mc-0084 JAM DAD, 2012 WL 968080, at *5 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012) (“It is well-established that Rule 27 is not a vehicle for pre-suit discovery.”). 

Case 2:15-cv-01667-MCE-KJN Document 6 Filed 11/17/15 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

2

the requirements of that Rule. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01667-MCE-KJN Document 6 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 2