Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ruiz v. Kelly

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 15, 2008

BRANDON RUIZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KAREN KELLY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's request for clarification of a previous court order.

Plaintiff previously filed his discovery requests with the court (Doc. 34, entitled motion for affidavits). This court's August 28, 2008, order informed plaintiff that discovery requests are not to be filed with the court unless there is a dispute regarding the defendants' failure to properly respond to the requests. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff has the ability to ask the defendants questions through interrogatories and for copies of documents through a request for production of documents. See Rules 30, 31, 33, 34, and 36. These request are not to be filed with the court unless the defendants fail to respond or their responses are not adequate. If that occurs, plaintiff could bring a motion to compel, pursuant to Rule 37.

Plaintiff's current filing indicates he did in fact submit the discovery requests to defendants, and included a proof of service with those requests. If that is the case, then plaintiff has done nothing wrong, other than filing his discovery requests with the court prematurely. However, if he has not served defendants with his "request for affidavits," which this court construed as a discovery request, he will be required to do so, along with a proof of service, before the defendants will be required to respond to the request. However, once defendants are properly served with discovery requests, they will be required to respond to the request by answering, objecting, or filing a motion for a protective order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is informed that the defendants are required to respond to any discovery requests properly propounded on them, and if the defendants fails to respond to the discovery requests, plaintiff may bring a motion to compel.

20080915

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.