Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01894/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01894-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

16CV1894 LAB (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATT STRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCES M. O'REILLY, trustee of the 

Frances M O'Reilly family trust initially 

created February 1, 1995, THOMAS 

KENNY, trustee of the Frances M. 

O'Reilly Trust Family Trust Initially 

Created February 1, 1995, THOMAS 

KENNY, ,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV1894 LAB (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

On November 29, 2017, Defendant Thomas Kenny filed a Motion to Compel 

seeking to compel Plaintiff Matt Strong to produce documents.1 (ECF No. 46.) 

However, Defendant has failed to comply with the undersigned’s Chambers’ Rules for 

resolution of a discovery dispute. (Chambers’ Rules at 5-7.) 

///

 

1 The Motion was accepted under a discrepancy order on December 8, 2017 despite other 

deficiencies in the filing. 

Case 3:16-cv-01894-LAB-BGS Document 47 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16CV1894 LAB (BGS)

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

First, it is unclear whether Defendant and counsel for the Plaintiff have met and 

conferred on this issue. (Id. at 5.) Second, the parties have not contacted the Court to 

specifically and succinctly explain the dispute. (Id. at 6.) Third, Defendant appears to be 

attempting to file a formal motion without approval from the Court, which the Chambers’

Rules specifically prohibit. (Id. at 7 (“Under no circumstances may any party file any 

motion relating to Rules 26 through 37 and 45, ex parte or otherwise, without complying 

with the procedure set forth in these chambers rules re: discovery disputes.”).) 

The Court recognizes that Defendant is proceeding pro se, however, proceeding 

pro se does not relieve a litigant of their obligation to follow the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Local Rules, and the undersigned’s Chambers’ Rules.

The Motion to Compel is DENIED with leave to follow the procedures outlined in 

the Chambers’ Rules for resolution of a discovery dispute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01894-LAB-BGS Document 47 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2