UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 16, 2011
KEN CLARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff Raymond Wright ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Doc. #76.) Defendants filed an opposition on December 13, 2010. (Doc. #77.) Plaintiff did not file a reply to Defendants' opposition.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion to compel is improper because Plaintiff did not propound any discovery requests. Plaintiff has not contested Defendants' arguments. Plaintiff's motion to compel seeks to obtain documents such as copies of Plaintiff's own complaint and copies of administrative appeals filed by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is advised that discovery is generally a self-executing process. Plaintiff must serve discovery requests directly on the opposing party. Discovery requests are not processed through the Court. The purpose of a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 is to compel an opposing party to disclose discovery that was improperly withheld. In other words, Plaintiff must first request some form of discovery directly from Defendants through the procedures outlined in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-36. If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with Defendants' response, Plaintiff may challenge the response via a Rule 37 motion to compel.*fn1 Plaintiff may not file a motion to compel until he has first attempted to obtain discovery directly from Defendants. A motion to compel under Rule 37 is not the proper mechanism to propound an initial request for discovery.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.