Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anthony Dean Slama v. City of Madera

December 7, 2011

ANTHONY DEAN SLAMA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF MADERA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Docket No. 82)

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 18, 2011, Plaintiff Anthony Dean Slama ("Plaintiff") filed a "request for production of documents pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and/or 45." (Doc. 82.) Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendants City of Madera ("City"), Madera Police Department ("MPD"), Officer Chavez ("Chavez"), and Officer Shekianian ("Shekianian" or, collectively, "Defendants") to produce "electronically stored information of [the] first, third, and fourth causes of action" from Defendants as related to their motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 82, pp. 1, 3.) As a Rule 34 request is made to a party and not to the Court, the Court construes Plaintiff's request as a motion to compel the production of documents.

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents from Defendants is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

On September 12, 2011, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated the prior orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. (Doc. 74; see also Doc. 73.) Plaintiff, currently representing himself in propria persona, was ordered to file a response to Defendants' two summary judgment motions (Docs. 53, 57) within sixty days of the date of the order granting the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 74.) On October 20, 2011, Plaintiff was granted an additional sixty-day extension of time in which to file the oppositions. (Doc. 81.) Plaintiff's opposition is now due on or before January 13, 2012.

On October 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel requesting the production of documents pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and/or 45. Included with the motion was a subpoena, directed at Defendants' counsel, which seeks "electronically stored information of [the] first, third, and fourth causes of action" related to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 82, p. 3.) Plaintiff's motion "requests and moves this Court to compel[] the Defendants for said referenced documents and pictures in [their] possession to further fortify the Plaintiff[']s claims." (Doc. 82, 1:19-22.)

On October 26, 2011, Defendants City, Chavez, and Shekianian filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents, contending that Plaintiff had not served a Rule 34 request to produce documents on Defendants and that any such request would be untimely. (Doc. 83.) Defendants believed, however, that the documents sought by Plaintiff were the exhibits to the motion for summary judgment and Defendants "have mailed a complete copy of the Summary Judgment along with three photographs which had not been requested during the discovery period." (Doc. 83, 2:25-28.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 provides that "[a] party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b)" and states that the request:

(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

(B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection and for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.