IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 15, 2008
RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA, PLAINTIFF,
ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On November 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for discovery. In this motion, plaintiff requests that defendants be ordered to provide him with his medical records as well as information regarding their background. Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue.
In his November 24, 2008, motion plaintiff also requests that he be provided with subpoenas to summon two witnesses. Plaintiff's motion is premature because no jury trial date has been set. The court will later issue orders containing information regarding how to obtain the attendance of non-incarcerated witnesses at trial.
Plaintiff also requests that Correctional Officer Garcia be ordered to sign a declaration stating that he saw plaintiff scream in pain at the doctor's office. The court does not have the authority to order Correctional Officer Garcia to sign this declaration. Plaintiff may himself ask Correctional Officer Garcia if he will sign a declaration containing this information.
On December 4, 2008, plaintiff filed a supplemental discovery motion. In this motion, plaintiff requests that defense counsel be ordered to answer eight questions regarding his medical condition. Plaintiff should submit these questions to defendants through defense counsel. If plaintiff is dissatisfied with defendants' responses, he may then file a motion to compel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's discovery motions (nos. 134, 137) are denied.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.