Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02431/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02431-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ANDERSON MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 

(CDCR), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02431-EMC 

ORDER

Docket Nos. 59, 60, 65, 67

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s two discovery letter 

requests and Plaintiff’s request to compel a Defendant to file an answer to the complaint.

Plaintiff has sent to the Court a letter requesting permission to file a motion to compel 

Defendants to allow him additional access to a computer on which to view documents Defendants 

had produced to him on a compact disk. His request and accompanying motion to compel are 

DENIED. (Docket Nos. 59 and 60.) Plaintiff set his letter request to the Court before he even 

attempted to make use of the half-hour access to a computer that Defendants had offered him to 

view the CD. Plaintiff’s request for Court intervention in the discovery dispute was thus 

premature as his refusal to even try the half-hour of access to determine if it would meet his needs 

was not a good faith effort to meet-and-confer to resolve the discovery dispute.

1

 More 

 

1

To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements (rather than becoming an 

overseer of all discovery), the Court requires that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their 

disagreements before seeking judicial intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N. D. Cal. Local 

Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a prisoner, the Court does not require in-person 

meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or 

exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of 

the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in a good-faith effort to meet and confer before 

seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute.

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 69 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

importantly, after Plaintiff filed his letter brief, Defendants provided him with paper copies of all 

the documents on the CD. (See Docket No. 62.) It turned out that there were several thousand 

pages of documents on the CD, so it would have taken Plaintiff many, many days to view the 

documents. Defendants’ provision of paper copies of all the documents on the CD sufficed to 

satisfy their discovery obligations. As a prisoner, Plaintiff’s access to electronic equipment is 

likely extremely limited, so it is not clear why he requested the production of documents in both 

electronic and paper form. Plaintiff has not shown any reasonable need for access to electronic 

equipment to view the documents now that paper copies have been produced. Ordering prison 

officials to grant him special access to a computer to view the CD would interfere with normal 

prison operations. Absent unusual and compelling circumstances not present here, federal courts 

generally are discouraged from interfering with day-to-day prison administration decisions. See 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987). If Plaintiff has a specific need for the CD to be 

viewed, he can enlist the aid of someone outside prison to view it. 

Plaintiff filed another letter requesting permission to file a motion to compel further 

responses to his request for production and inspection of documents and other tangible things. 

(Docket No. 67.) The request is DENIED because Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer letter provided 

such a short deadline that it was not a good faith effort to meet and confer. Plaintiff mailed a 

meet-and-confer letter to counsel for two different sets of defendants on October 24 (which would 

have been received on October 25 (a Tuesday) at the earliest), demanding that each of them set up 

a telephone conference with him no later than October 31 (the following Monday), or he would 

file a discovery request on November 1 (the next day). Docket No. 67 at 13. Demanding a 

conference call be set up within four business days -- a process which also requires that prison 

officials make certain accommodations to allow it to happen -- was not a good faith use of the 

meet-and-confer process. Although this may be Plaintiff’s only case, attorneys have many cases 

and cannot necessarily drop everything to immediately deal with an insistent opponent. Defense 

counsel also may not be able to force prison officials to immediately arrange the telephone 

conference for the insistent prisoner-litigant. The denial of Plaintiff’s request to file a motion to 

compel is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new motion to compel no earlier than December 1, 

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 69 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

2016, if the discovery dispute remains unresolved; this will give the parties a reasonable 

opportunity to informally resolve their discovery dispute before turning to the Court for help.

Plaintiff has requested the Court to order Defendant Knight to file an answer to the

complaint. (Docket No. 65.) The request is DENIED. Defendant Knight has filed a waiver of 

reply. (Docket No. 64.) A defendant is permitted by statute to file a waiver of reply instead of an 

answer. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 69 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 3