IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 2, 2010
SCOTT N. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
THANH HUV NGUYEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CAL STATE AUTO SERVICE, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows U.S. Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff has filed a request for inspection of property pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, but has not noticed it for hearing.
Federal Rule of Procedure 34 provides that a party may request of another party permission to: inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents or electronically stored information - including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained - translated, if necessary, by the respondent into reasonably usable form, .... or (2) to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection ....
Inspection of property and "things" is well established in federal discovery law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Nevertheless, the court will not issue an ex parte order in lieu of a discovery request initially served on the party whose premises are to be inspected. Only if the formal request is dishonored will the court issue an order, if appropriate. Plaintiff must follow the rules for calendaring motions. The parties are referred to E. D. Local Rule 251.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for inspection under Rule 34, filed June 28, 2010, is noticed for hearing on July 29, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #9.
2. Defendant shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition by July 22, 2010.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.