Smith v. Aubuchon, 2:14-CV-0775-KJM-DMC-P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190911b03
Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 114). Plaintiff propounded discovery on defendants on May 12, 2019. See ECF No. 118, pgs. 6-7 (Williams Declaration). Defendants served responses on June 26, 2019. See ECF No. 114, pgs. 4-33 (Defendants' Responses). Plaintiff's motion is procedurally defective in that plaintiff
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 114). Plaintiff propounded discovery on defendants on May 12, 2019. See ECF No. 118, pgs. 6-7 (Williams Declaration). Defendants served responses on June 26, 2019. See ECF No. 114, pgs. 4-33 (Defendants' Responses). Plaintiff's motion is procedurally defective in that plaintiff ..
More
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 114).
Plaintiff propounded discovery on defendants on May 12, 2019. See ECF No. 118, pgs. 6-7 (Williams Declaration). Defendants served responses on June 26, 2019. See ECF No. 114, pgs. 4-33 (Defendants' Responses).
Plaintiff's motion is procedurally defective in that plaintiff failed to meet and confer as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). Plaintiff's motion does not contain any certification or declaration indicating that plaintiff at least attempted to meet and confer with defendants' counsel prior to filing the instant motion to compel. Plaintiff's motion is also substantively defective in that it fails to provide any basis upon which the court may undertake an analysis of the sufficiency of defendants' responses. Specifically, while plaintiff's motion describes the additional discovery sought, plaintiff does not set forth any arguments as to why defendants' responses are inadequate.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 114) is denied.
Source: Leagle
