Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00065/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

JOSE TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANN’S DISCOUNT AUTO SALES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00065-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ 

OBJECTION AND OVERRULING 

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO 

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR INSPECTION

(ECF Nos. 10, 11)

Plaintiff Jose Trujillo filed this action against Defendants Dann’s Discount Auto Sales, 

Inc. and P.W. Holdings, LLC, on January 13, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The mandatory scheduling 

conference is set in this matter for March 28, 2017. (ECF No. 3.) On March 16, 2017, 

Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiff’s notice of inspection on the ground that Plaintiff 

cannot propound discovery until after the parties have participated in the mandatory FRCP 26(f) 

conference which has not occurred. (ECF No. 10.) 

On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request to strike the objections arguing that the Rule 

34 notice may be served more than 21 days after the summons and complaint are served on a 

party. The demand for inspection was served on February 28, 2017. The first Rule 26(f) 

conference between the parties was held on March 7, 2017, and the inspection is scheduled to 

take place on April 24, 2017. (ECF No. 11.)

Case 1:17-cv-00065-SAB Document 12 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 3
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

The issue currently before the Court has been improperly raised. Defendants have not 

filed a motion, but an objection to discovery. Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ objection but 

provides no legal authority for the request. Since Defendants have objected to the demand for 

inspection, and Plaintiff has filed what the Court construes as a reply, the Court shall address 

Defendants’ objection.

Pursuant to Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a party may not seek 

discovery before the parties have conferred as required by the Rule 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(d)(1). However, a party may deliver an early request under Rule 34 more than 21 days after 

the party is served with the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2)(A). The request is 

then considered served on the date of the Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2)(B). 

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, a party may serve a request 

to permit entry onto designated property “controlled by the responding party, so that the 

requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any 

designated object or operation on it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). The request must specify a 

reasonable time and manner of making the inspection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(B). Where the 

request is served prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, the responding thirty must respond within 30 

days of the parties first Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). Rule 26(f) provides 

that the parties must confer at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a 

scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1).

Here, the demand for inspection is deemed served pursuant to Rule 26(d) on March 7, 

2017, when the parties had their first Rule 26(f) conference. The inspection is to occur on April 

24, 2017, more than six weeks after the date served. Rule 34 provides that a party must respond 

within thirty days of the request. The Court finds that the demand for inspection provided 

reasonable notice of the date of inspection. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:17-cv-00065-SAB Document 12 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendants’ objection to the demand for 

inspection is DENIED; and Defendants’ objection to the demand for inspection is 

OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00065-SAB Document 12 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 3