Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06070/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06070-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE JEROME ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. R. D. VANDT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6070-REC-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

(Doc. 78)

Plaintiff Wayne Jerome Robertson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 3, 2005, plaintiff

filed a motion to compel. Defendants did not file a response.

It appears that plaintiff’s filing is a request for the production of documents directed at

defendants rather than a motion for the court to compel defendants to respond to plaintiff’s

previously served discovery request. Discovery is to be conducted between the parties and does not

involve the court unless a dispute arises and the court’s intervention or assistance is needed. For that

reason, discovery requests are to be served on the opposing parties and are not to be filed with the

court unless there is a dispute pending before the court that requires the court to consider the

discovery request.

To the extent that plaintiff’s filing is intended to be a motion to compel a response to an

earlier served discovery request, plaintiff’s motion is incomplete. At a minimum, plaintiff’s motion

to compel must be accompanied by a copy of the discovery request at issue, including the certificate

of service setting forth the date the request was served, and a copy of the opposing party’s response

Case 1:03-cv-06070-LJO -GSA Document 84 Filed 11/01/05 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

1

 The discovery phase of this litigation closed on October 7, 2005, as between plaintiff and defendants

Farris, Vaughn, Gabaldon, and Walters, and neither plaintiff nor defendants Farris, Vaughn, Gabaldon, and Walters

filed a timely motion for an extension of the deadline. (Disc./Sched. Order, Doc. 67.) 

2

to the request, if any. In addition, prior to filing a motion to compel, plaintiff must make a good faith

attempt to resolve the dispute with defendants’ counsel and must include with the motion a

certification that he did so.1 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed October 3, 2005, is HEREBY

DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06070-LJO -GSA Document 84 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2