Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RHODES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1715 MCE EFB PS

vs.

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS 

CORPORATION, et al., 

ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

On December 6, 2006, plaintiff filed several “motions” in the above-captioned case, and

attempted to notice them for hearing on the court’s December 20, 2006 law and motion calendar. 

None of those “motions” were properly noticed pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(b). Accordingly,

the court vacates all such motions filed by plaintiff on December 6, 2006.

Two of these motions appear to be “oppositions” to the discovery motions filed by

defendant and scheduled for hearing on December 20, 2006. These documents are filings not

contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor the Local Rules. Plaintiff is reminded

of his obligation to participate in drafting the joint statement concerning defendant’s discovery

motions calendared for hearing on December 20, 2006. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251. Plaintiff’s

arguments against granting the motion should be addressed in the joint statement, pursuant to

Local Rule 37-251 and this court’s order dated November 27, 2006. 

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 89 Filed 12/12/06 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

2

The court also notes that plaintiff has filed a document entitled “Notice of Motion and

Motion to Compel Statement and Subpoena Duces Tecum for EDS Employee and Rule 26

Expert Witness Alton Moore to Appear in Court for Discovery Hearing Scheduled for December

20th.” By this “motion” it appears that plaintiff seeks the court’s permission to depose Mr.

Moore in court during its law and motion calendar. This understanding is confirmed by the

“subpoena duces tecum” filed by plaintiff on the same date. By this purported subpoena,

plaintiff apparently seeks to force Mr. Moore to appear at the December 20, 2006, hearing and to

orally respond to a set of “interrogatories.” Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not

necessary to depose a witness, or to otherwise conduct discovery. Further, such discovery does

not take place in the courtroom during the law and motion calendar. Plaintiff is further advised

that motions to compel discovery should not be filed until such time as a party becomes

dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. In this case, it is unclear whether plaintiff has properly noticed Mr. Moore’s

deposition or otherwise previously served discovery requests in compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all plaintiff’s “motions” filed on

December 6, 2006, will be placed in the court file and disregarded. To the extent plaintiff sought

to place them on the court’s December 20, 2006 law and motion calendar, they are hereby

vacated. The court will hear only those matters previously set for hearing on that date. Plaintiff

is again cautioned against inundating the court with documents that are not contemplated by, nor

in compliance with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules. Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with this warning may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited

to, a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 11-110. 

DATED: December 11, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 89 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2