Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05578/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05578-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES DARREN CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-05578-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

Re: Dkt. No. 53 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison and 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining of civil 

rights violations at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he was previously housed. On May 

17, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and ordered Defendants to file 

a dispositive motion. Docket No. 36. Currently, Defendants’ dispositive motion is due on 

December 31, 2016. Docket No. 52. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a 45-

day extension of time to respond Defendants’ discovery requests received by Plaintiff on October 

11, 2016. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. 

The Court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved 

when there is a dispute between the parties about the sufficiency of discovery responses. Here it is 

unclear if Plaintiff has conferred with Defendants in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable 

deadline for responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. Only when the parties have a discovery 

dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even consider asking the 

court to intervene in the discovery process. The Court does not have enough time or resources to 

oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very specific 

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

Case 3:14-cv-05578-JD Document 54 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

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

resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. 

L.R. 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. 

This order terminates Docket No. 53. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

United States Magistrate Judge 

November 9, 2016

Case 3:14-cv-05578-JD Document 54 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 2