Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02774/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02774-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FISHER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 CITY OF PITTSBURG, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-05-02774 CW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

On December 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to requests for production

of documents and interrogatories, and Defendants opposed the motion on December 18, 2007. 

Plaintiff failed to file the discovery requests and responses that are the subject of his motion as

required by Civil Local Rule 37-2. On January 7, 2008, the Court ordered Defendants to file with

the Court and serve on Plaintiff a copy of Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, Plaintiff’s requests

for production of documents and Defendants’ responses to this discovery. The Court also ordered

Plaintiff to file a supplemental statement in support of his motion to compel no later than January 25,

2008 specifically stating which particular discovery requests are at issue and why he believes

responses are necessary, and gave Defendants leave to file a response no later than February 1, 2008. 

Plaintiff did not file a supplemental statement in response to the Court’s Order. Because the

Court was concerned that Plaintiff may not have received notice of the January 7, 2008 Order, the

Court gave Plaintiff one more chance to file a supplemental statement in accordance with that Order. 

Plaintiff again failed to file a supplemental statement by the court-ordered deadline of February 25,

Case 4:05-cv-02774-CW Document 75 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

2008. On March 3, 2008, Defendants filed their response stating that they had not received a

supplemental statement from Plaintiff. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court as to which specific discovery requests are at

issue in his motion to compel, the Court is unable to determine whether he is entitled to relief

pursuant to his motion to compel. Therefore, the motion to compel is denied without prejudice. If

Plaintiff chooses to re-file his motion to compel, he should set forth the specific discovery requests

that are still at issue as well as the basis for his contention that he is entitled to the discovery

requested. See Civil L.R. 37-2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02774-CW Document 75 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 2