WARE v. McDONALD, 2:12-cv-1505 TLN KJN P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150629660
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On June 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a document in the form of a memo or letter, with the subject line: "Discovery evidence." (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff states that he received defendant Hanks' response to plaintiff's request for production of documents, but claims he did not receive the "genuineness of documents" or actual copies as requested in the request for admissions 1 made to defendant Hanks. However, plaintiff suggests he might not have proper
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On June 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a document in the form of a memo or letter, with the subject line: "Discovery evidence." (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff states that he received defendant Hanks' response to plaintiff's request for production of documents, but claims he did not receive the "genuineness of documents" or actual copies as requested in the request for admissions 1 made to defendant Hanks. However, plaintiff suggests he might not have properl..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On June 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a document in the form of a memo or letter, with the subject line: "Discovery evidence." (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff states that he received defendant Hanks' response to plaintiff's request for production of documents, but claims he did not receive the "genuineness of documents" or actual copies as requested in the request for admissions1 made to defendant Hanks. However, plaintiff suggests he might not have properly drafted the request or requests.
If plaintiff believes he did not receive a response that he should have, or that his request was unclear, he is not precluded from writing to defendants' counsel in an effort to resolve the misunderstanding. But if plaintiff formally disputes discovery responses, he must file a motion to compel discovery if he seeks the court's ruling on the dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Plaintiff is reminded that discovery closes on July 24, 2015. (ECF No. 75 at 5.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's June 22, 2015 filing is retained in the court record and disregarded.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff is advised that requests for admissions are not the proper discovery tool to obtain documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. Rather, generally, documents are obtained through requests for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
Source: Leagle
