UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 30, 2009
CHRISTOPHER W. CARDWELL, PLAINTIFF,
A. KETTELHAKE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James L. Robart United States District Judge
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Christopher W. Cardwell's declaration for entry of default (Dkt. # 35) and his request for court clerk (Dkt. # 36). Mr. Cardwell requests entry of default due to Defendant Richard Colletti's failure to answer Mr. Cardwell's interrogatories. Separately, Mr. Cardwell inquires whether it is proper practice to file with the court answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admission.
It appears that after Mr. Cardwell filed his discovery motion, Dr. Colletti served his answers to Mr. Cardwell's interrogatories. (See Reply (Dkt. # 38) at 2.) As Dr. Colletti has now provided answers to Mr. Cardwell's interrogatories and Mr. Cardwell did not attempt to meet and confer prior to the filing of his motion, the court denies Mr. Cardwell's motion. The court cautions Mr. Cardwell that he must comply with the Local Rules when filing motions related to discovery. Local Rules E.D. Cal. Rule 37-251(b) provides in relevant part that, "a motion made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 . . . shall not be heard unless . . . the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their differences."
The court also cautions Dr. Colletti that failure to comply with and abide by court imposed deadlines and orders will not be tolerated. In its order of July 21, 2009 the court set August 12, 2009 as the deadline for service of Dr. Colletti's answers to Mr. Cardwell's discovery requests. (See July 21, 2009 Order (Dkt. # 31) at 2.) Counsel for Dr. Colletti states, without explanation, that the answers were served not on or before August 12, 2009 but on August 28, 2009, significantly after the deadline set by the court. (See Declaration of Oliver Lewis (Dkt. # 37) at ¶ 6.)
In response to Mr. Cardwell's question regarding whether he should file answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admission, Mr. Cardwell is directed to Local Rules E.D. Cal. Rules 33-250(c) and 36-250(c) which provide that interrogatories, requests for admission, answers and responses, shall not be filed with the Clerk until there is a proceeding in which the interrogatories and answers or requests for admission and responses are at issue. In the future, before seeking guidance from the court, Mr. Cardwell should review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Cardwell's motion for entry of default.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.