UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 14, 2008
UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK AND ERIC TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, THEIR MEMBERS AND/OR ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AS APPLICABLE, PLAINTIFFS,
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.; SPRINT SPECTRUM LP; SPRINT-NEXTEL CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert J. Bryan United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR ORDER PERMITTING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
This matter comes before the court on the above-referenced motion (Dkt. 13) The court is familiar with the records and files herein and all documents filed in support of and in opposition to the motion. For the following reasons, the motion should be denied.
First, the court notes that this is not an "ex parte" motion.
The essence of this motion is a request that the court assist the plaintiffs by allowing discovery rules to be used in an investigation. The matters plaintiffs wish to investigate are not directly part of the issues raised in plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. 9). At this point, the proposed investigation has not been shown to be relevant to the plaintiffs' claim as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Whether the matters referred to in plaintiffs' motion are within the proper scope of discovery may be addressed later in this litigation, but should be addressed only after the parties have met and conferred as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Furthermore, the plaintiffs' showing is simply not sufficient to justify discovery out of the sequence contemplated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) and (f).
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting Expedited Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a) is DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.