Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03166/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03166-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Murphy
Defendant
Maurice Davon Robins
Plaintiff
Salinas Valley State Prison
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE DAVON ROBINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD MURPHY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03166-JST (PR) 

ORDER LIFTING STAY; DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL; SCHEDULING 

DISPOSTIVE MOTION

Re: ECF No. 41

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison filed the instant pro se action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a former correctional officer at Salinas Valley State Prison, where 

plaintiff was previously incarcerated. On March 25, 2016, at the request of both parties, the Court 

referred the action to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for one or more settlement conferences and 

stayed further proceedings. On August 15, 2016, Judge Vadas reported that the case did not settle. 

Accordingly, the Court will lift the stay and issue a schedule for dispositive motion briefing as set 

forth below.

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s December 30, 2015 order denying plaintiff’s 

motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel, ECF 

No. 41, will be DENIED.

Plaintiff has also filed a request for production of documents. ECF No. 41 at 3. Plaintiff’s 

filing reflects his misunderstanding of the discovery process. A party may not obtain discovery by 

simply telling the Court what information he wants to receive. 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 being sent to the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1) (listing 

Case 3:15-cv-03166-JST Document 42 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

discovery requests and responses that “must not” be filed with the Court until they are used in the 

proceeding or the Court orders otherwise). In sum, plaintiff must send discovery requests directly 

to defense counsel and not to the Court.

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 disagreements. And 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)(1); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. A plaintiff must engage in 

good faith efforts to meet-and-confer to try to resolve his discovery disputes before seeking an 

order compelling discovery. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The Clerk shall REOPEN this action.

2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

3. The Court now sets the following new briefing schedule for dispositive motions: 

Defendant must file and serve his dispositive motion no later than December 9, 2016. Plaintiff 

shall file any opposition to defendant’s motion within twenty-eight (28) days of the date the 

motion is filed. Defendant shall file a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date the opposition is 

filed.

This order terminates Docket No. 41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03166-JST Document 42 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2