Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00691/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00691-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BILL KING, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BOBBY BOOZER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00691-JAM-AC 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is pro se plaintiffs’ March 30, 2015, request for electronic 

document submission, ECF No. 4, and request for issuance of subpoenas, ECF No. 6. The court 

construes plaintiffs’ request for issuance of subpoenas as a request for early discovery. 

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the Rule 26(f) conference unless 

that party first obtains a stipulation or court order permitting early discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(d)(1). Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the “good cause” standard in deciding whether to 

permit early discovery. Semitol, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 

(N.D. Cal. 2002) (adopting the conventional standard of “good cause” in evaluating a request for 

expedited discovery). Good cause exists “where the need for expedited discovery, in 

consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” 

Id. Plaintiffs’ motion for early discovery requests that the court subpoena three witnesses for 

trial. ECF No. 6. However, no trial has been set. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 27, 

Case 2:15-cv-00691-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 04/07/15 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

2015, ECF No. 1, and defendants have yet to be served. Plaintiffs offer no explanation for why a 

subpoena should issue at this early stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the court finds that 

plaintiffs have not shown good cause why early discovery is necessary, and their request will be 

denied. 

Having reviewed plaintiffs’ request for electronic submission, the court finds plaintiffs 

have shown good cause. Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiffs’ request to electronically file. 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ request for early discovery, ECF No. 6, is DENIED; and 

2. Plaintiffs’ request to file electronically, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED. 

3. Plaintiffs may now file all documents electronically pursuant to Local Rule 133. 

DATED: April 6, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00691-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2