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.

Peter Graves v. Hillary Random Clinton and James Steinberg

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


February 10, 2011

PETER GRAVES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HILLARY RANDOM CLINTON AND JAMES STEINBERG, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Presently before the court is a request from plaintiff that the court enter an order compelling defendants to provide plaintiff with certain "diversity data." (Dkt. No. 11.) The court construes this as a motion to compel defendants to respond to discovery.

The undersigned denies plaintiff's request. First, plaintiff's complaint has not been served on defendants yet, and, accordingly, defendants have not yet appeared in this action. Second, formal discovery is premature in this case because the parties have not conducted a conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) states: "A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order." District courts within the Ninth Circuit may also permit expedited discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference upon a showing of "good cause." See, e.g., In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Derivative Litig., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002)); accord Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2009). "Good cause exists where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Derivative Litig., 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The parties have not yet held their Rule 26(f) conference, and plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause in support of his request.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for an order compelling defendants to provide plaintiff with discovery (Dkt. No. 11) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110210

© 1992-2011 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.