Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01872/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01872-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John-Raymond Nichols, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael A. Bosco Jr., et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-01872-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's request for production of documents to the Wells

Fargo defendants (doc 37), defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's request (doc. 44), plaintiff's

response (doc. 52) and amended request for production of documents (doc. 53), and

defendants' reply (doc. 56). The court also has before it plaintiff's motion to allow electronic

filing by a party appearing without an attorney (doc. 64).

Plaintiff has requested that defendants produce documentation proving that defendants

have a beneficial interest in plaintiff's property. Plaintiff's request is premised on his belief

that such documentation is required to foreclose on his property. However, as defendants

have correctly pointed out, discovery is not proper at this time because the parties have not

conferred as required by Rule 26(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. See Rule 26(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. In

addition, plaintiff misapprehends the rule of initial disclosures. Rule 26(a)(1)(C), Fed. R.

Civ. P. does require parties to make initial disclosures, but not until the Rule 26(f)

conference, or 14 days after it, unless another time is set by stipulation or court order, which

Case 2:10-cv-01872-FJM Document 66 Filed 11/23/10 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 -

is not the case here. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to discovery or disclosures until after

the Rule 26(f) conference.

In addition, we have reviewed plaintiff's motion to allow electronic filing and do not

grant it. Having reviewed plaintiff's complaint and many other filings, we urge plaintiff to

seek the advice of a lawyer. We do not believe the issues raised can be adequately handled

by a non-lawyer. If plaintiff does not have a lawyer he may wish to contact the Lawyer

Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at (602) 257-4434.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant's Motion to strike

plaintiff's request for production of documents (doc. 44).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's Motion to allow electronic

filing by a party without an attorney (doc. 64).

DATED this 23rd day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01872-FJM Document 66 Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 2