Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-46/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

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY BOEHM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 165)

On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion to compel fails 

to comply with the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. Pursuant to the Local Rule 

a motion regarding a discovery agreement is a noticed hearing held at least 21 days after the 

motion is filed. L.R. 251(a). Further, the Court will not hear a motion regarding a discovery 

dispute unless the parties have met and conferred to resolve their differences and have set forth 

the basis of the discovery agreement in a joint statement. L.R. 251(b). The requirements of the 

joint statement are set forth in Rule 251(c). Plaintiff is advised that even though he is proceeding 

pro se in this action he is required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Local Rules in prosecuting this action. 

Additionally, Plaintiff cannot merely identify the specific request for which he seeks a

further response. As the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the Court which 

discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, for each disputed response, why 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 166 Filed 04/30/15 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

Defendant’s objection is not justified. Plaintiff may not simply assert that he has served 

discovery requests, that he is dissatisfied, and that he wants an order compelling responses. The 

Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that it is procedurally deficient. The denial 

will be without prejudice to curing the deficiencies and re-filing the motion, within thirty days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 166 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2