UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 14, 2009
DAVID WEBB, PLAINTIFF,
OLIVE GARDEN ITALIAN RESTAURANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patricia V. Trumbull United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF DAVID WEBB'S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY [Docket No. 47]
On April 23, 2009, plaintiff David Webb proceeding pro se moved for limited discovery of personnel and criminal background records of certain individuals employed by the Olive Garden Italian Restaurants. On May 8, 2009, defendant Olive Garden Restaurants filed a letter dated May 8, 2009 which objected to the request for personnel and criminal background records on the grounds that the request was premature pursuant to Rule 26(f). Rule 26(f) states in pertinent part that "[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Generally, a Rule 26(f) conference is held "at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Here, the case management conference is scheduled to be held on June 30, 2009 and the case management conference statement is due no later than June 23, 2009. See Docket No. 51.
Therefore, plaintiff Webb's motion for limited discovery is premature. Accordingly, plaintiff Webb's motion for limited discovery is denied without prejudice. In the event plaintiff Webb seeks to renew his motion for discovery, he is advised to review the local rules (especially Civ. L.R. 7), which are available on the court's website located at www.cand.uscourts.gov.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.