Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02540/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02540-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREAS RUIZ, et al.

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-CV-2540-IEG (WVG)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ORDER FOR

INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS

[DOC. NO. 81]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Inspection and Production

of Documents. (Doc. No. 81.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, requesting that

Defendants produce a copy of Plaintiff’s jury trial transcript, and a copy of a DVD that

contains photographs and audio recordings. (Doc. No. 42 at 4-5.) On June 12, 2012,

Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, arguing that the meet and

confer requirement was not satisfied prior to filing the Motion, and that Plaintiff’s discovery

request was moot. (Doc. No. 49.) On July 3, 2012, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel on the grounds that the Motion was premature due to the parties’ failure to meet and

confer. (Doc. No. 50 at 1-2.) The Court also determined Plaintiff’s Motion to be moot

1 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 87 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 5
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

because Defendants had already provided, or attempted to provide, the requested discovery. 

Id. at 2. 

On July 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel, again requesting that

Defendants produce his jury trial transcript, along with additional information related to

medical care after the incident. (Doc. No. 53 at 1-2.) On July 30, 2012, the Court denied

Plaintiff’s Motion, finding that no new facts were asserted and that the parties once again

failed to meet and confer. (Doc. No. 56 at 4.)

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, which is essentially a Motion

for Reconsideration, and was filed nearly six months after the close of fact discovery. (Doc.

No. 57 at 2.) Despite numerous admonishments by this Court to meet and confer in good

faith prior to filing a Motion to Compel, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion without making

any effort to meet and confer with Defendants. (Doc. No. 85 at 2.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Southern District of California Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1) provides that when a Motion

“is made for the same relief in whole or in part upon the same or any alleged different state

of facts,” the moving party must present the Court with an affidavit of a party or witness or

certified statement of an attorney which sets forth the material facts and circumstances

surrounding each prior application. CivLR 7.1(i)(1). The motion for reconsideration must

also include the “new or different facts and circumstances [which] are claimed to exist which

did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” Id.

B. Meet and Confer Requirement

Civil Local Rule 26.1(a) requires the moving party to arrange a meet and confer before

the Court will entertain a discovery motion. CivLR 26.1(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37 provides that a motion to compel disclosure or discovery “must include a certification that

the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing

to make disclosure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The Court expects strict compliance with the

meet and confer requirement, as it is the experience of the Court that the vast majority of

2 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 87 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2 of 5
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

disputes can be resolved by means of that process. This Court’s Chambers Rules require

counsel to “thoroughly meet and confer,” and “make every effort in good faith to resolve all

disputes without the necessity of court intervention.” (Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff now asserts the same argument as in his prior Motions to Compel, requesting

that the Court compel production of the entire jury trial transcript. (Doc. No. 42 at 4; Doc.

No. 53 at 1.) In his May 22, 2012, Motion, Plaintiff argued that Defendants have an unfair

advantage because they were able to produce a “prejudicial portion of the trial proceeding

while leaving out exculpatory evidence of the same issue in that proceeding.” (Doc. No. 42

at 4.) In his July 13, 2012, Motion, Plaintiff argued that statements of witnesses that were

omitted from the transcript produced by Defendants, show Defendants’ liability. (Doc. No.

53 at 1.) Plaintiff now asserts the same basic argument for compelling production of the jury

trial transcript, claiming that Defendants have refused to produce the transcript and other

discovery items, thereby prejudicing Plaintiff’s efforts to prosecute his case. (Doc. No. 81

at 1.) Plaintiff provides no new reasons or facts to support his most recent request.

Further, Plaintiff requested internal affairs information in a Pitchess Motion filed on

February 23, 2012, which was denied without prejudice by the Court on April 18, 2012, due

to failure to address the meet and confer requirement and failure to propound discovery

requests upon Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 21, 39.) Again, Plaintiff provides no new reasons or

facts to support his most recent request.

B. Meet and Confer Requirement

In three previous Orders, this Court has informed Plaintiff of the requirement to meet

and confer prior to filing a motion to compel discovery. (See Doc. Nos. 39, 50, 56.) On

April 18, 2012, in an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Pitchess Motion and Motion to Compel a

Pitchess Motion, the Court thoroughly explained the meet and confer requirement of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), Civil Local Rule 26.1(a), and this Court’s Chambers Rule

IV. Id. at 1. 

3 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 87 Filed 03/07/13 Page 3 of 5
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

On July 3, 2012, and July 30, 2012, the Court again stressed the importance of the

meet and confer requirement prior to filing a Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 50 at 2.) 

However, despite the Court’s repeated reminders that parties must adhere to the meet and

confer requirement, Plaintiff’s instant Motion fails to address such meet and confer efforts. 

As Defendants note in their Response to the instant Motion, “Plaintiff did not contact

[Defendants] prior to the filing of this motion or attempt in any way to informally resolve

this dispute.” (Doc. No. 85 at 2.)

C. Plaintiff’s Motion is Untimely

On August 6, 2012, this Court issued a Third Amended Scheduling Order, which

stated that all fact discovery must be completed on or before August 27, 2012. (Doc. No. 57

at 2.) The Court further explained that,

“Completed" means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. All disputes concerning discovery shall be brought to the attention of the Magistrate Judge no later than thirty (30) days following the date upon which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred. Counsel shall meet and confer pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and Local Rule 26.1(a).

Id.

Plaintiff’s instant Motion comes before the Court nearly six months after the

expiration of fact discovery. Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely.

D. Plaintiff’s Motion is Moot 

In this Court’s July 3, 2012, Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

and Motion for Order to Show Cause, it explained that Plaintiff had already received all of

the portions of his jury trial transcript within Defendants’ possession. Id. at 2. In their

Response to the instant Motion, Defendants once again explain that Defendant City of San

Diego (erroneously named as San Diego Police Department), “voluntarily provided Plaintiff

with the portions of the criminal trial transcripts it had in its possession while fact discovery

was still open.” (Doc. No. 85 at 4.) 

4 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 87 Filed 03/07/13 Page 4 of 5
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

In his Motion, Plaintiff also requests an Order from the Court requiring Defendants

to produce police reports, field interviews generated at the crime scene, and documents

concerning the employment history, criminal history, and internal affairs investigations of

the individual Defendants. (Doc. No. 81 at 5.) In response, Defendants argue that they have

produced, “[a]ll applicable police reports, photographs, and audio sought by Plaintiff...” 

(Doc. No. 85 at 4.) 

Therefore, the majority of Plaintiff’s requests are moot.

IV. RULING

The Court hereby denies Plaintiff’s instant Motion on the basis that no new or

different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown,

in Plaintiff’s previous Motions to Compel. Additionally, the Court will not consider a

Motion to Compel filed by either party unless the moving party demonstrates that they have

participated in a good faith meet and confer session. Further, the time to request discovery

has long since expired, and Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with most of the

documents and information that he now seeks.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Inspection and

Production of Documents is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 7, 2013

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

5 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 87 Filed 03/07/13 Page 5 of 5