Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03481/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03481-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

JAMES EARL BOLDEN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JOSEPH CHUDY, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-3481 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY AND

GRANTING EXTENSION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at California Training Facility, proceeds with a pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have requested an extension to file a

dispositive motion and plaintiff has filed a motion to pursue discovery.

On October 20, 2014, the court found that plaintiff presented a cognizable claim and

ordered defendants, who had already been served, to file a dispositive motion. The court

also ordered that discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and no further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

The court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes

involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. 

Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without

any copy sent to the court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and

responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the

court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot

resolve among themselves should the parties even consider asking the court to intervene in

the discovery process. The court does not have enough time or resources to oversee all

discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very specific

Case 4:14-cv-03481-PJH Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 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

disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements

(rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties meet

and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See

Fed. R. Civ .P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a

prisoner, the court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and

defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the

format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the

same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking

court intervention in any discovery dispute. Thus, plaintiff may proceed with discovery as

discussed above and in the prior court order. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (Docket No. 22) is DENIED.

2. Defendants’ motion for an extension (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED. Defendants

may have until April 20, 2015, to file a motion for summary judgment or dispositive motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2015. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.14\Bolden3481.disc.wpd

Case 4:14-cv-03481-PJH Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2