UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 4, 2012
J. WARD, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 20)
Plaintiff Michael Crudup ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant M. Jericoff ("Defendant") for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On September 16, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to compel. Doc. 20. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to respond to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions. Def.'s P. & A. 2:4-9. Defendant contends that he served these requests on July 18, 2011, and has not received any response as of the filing of the motion. Id. Defendant contends that the discovery requests are attached as Exhibit A to defense counsel's declaration. However, no such exhibit is attached.
Under the Local Rules of the Court, discovery requests are not to be submitted unless they become at issue. See L.R. 250.2(c), 250.3(c), 250.4(c). Because no discovery requests have been submitted, and the discovery requests are in dispute, the Court cannot make a determination on the merits of Defendant's motion, and will deny it. Defendant is not precluded from filing another motion to compel in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to compel, filed September 16, 2011, is denied, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.