IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 11, 2012
JACQUELINE M. TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND DOES 1-100, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On June 7, 2012, plaintiff filed her "Request for Discovery," which was docketed as a motion for discovery.*fn1 It is clear from plaintiff's filing that it is not a discovery motion seeking relief from the court relative to a discovery dispute, such as a motion to compel. Instead, plaintiff simply filed her requests for production of documents with the court in the absence of any pending discovery dispute. Such a filing was unnecessary and, indeed, violates the court's Local Rules. See Local Rule 250.3 (providing, in part, that "[r]equests for production, responses and proofs of service thereof shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the request, response, or proof of service is at issue"). Plaintiff is yet again warned that she must familiarize herself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local Rules. See Local Rule 183(a) ("Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 'counsel' by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona.").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent that plaintiff's "Request for Discovery" (Dkt. No. 33) is actually a motion, it is denied as prematurely filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.