United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LEVINE TO ANSWER
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS [ECF NO.
H. BARTICK United States Magistrate Judge.
April 22, 2016, Plaintiff Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D.
(“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte motion
requesting the Court compel Defendant Sharon Levine
(“Levine”) to answer Plaintiff’s first set
of request for admissions and request to admit genuineness of
documents. (ECF No. 154.) Kirchmeyer filed an opposition to
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion on May 13, 2016.
(ECF No. 160.) For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
initiated this action on September 25, 2012, alleging
Defendants wrongfully took disciplinary action against
Plaintiff’s physician’s and surgeon’s
certificate. (ECF No. 1.) On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff
served a First Set of Request for Admissions on Levine. (ECF
No. 154 at 32-53.) On December 18, 2015, Levine responded.
(ECF No. 154 at 55-75.)
on April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant ex
parte motion requesting the Court to compel Levine to
admit each of the 167 Request for Admissions he
propounded. (ECF No. 154.)
Failure to Comply with the Court’s Procedures for
has failed to comply with this Court’s procedures for
filing discovery motions. First, Plaintiff has not complied
with Section IV.C. of the undersigned Magistrate
Judge’s Civil Chambers Rules which requires the filing
of a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery
Dispute. Second, Plaintiff has not shown he
adequately met and conferred with Levine prior to filing the
instant motion. The duty to meet and confer prior to bringing
a discovery motion is required not only by this Court’s
Chambers Rules and the Southern District’s Civil Local
Rules, but also by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); Civ. L.R. 26.1(a).
Plaintiff also failed to comply with the Court’s rules
governing ex parte applications. See Civ.
L. R. 83.3(h)(2).
Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Pursuant to this
Court’s Chambers Rules, all discovery motions must be
filed “within forty-five (45) days of the date upon
which the event giving rise to the dispute occurred.”
Judge Bartick’s Civil Chambers Rules IV(C). For written
discovery, the event giving rise to the dispute is the date
of the service of the initial response. Id. Here,
the event giving rise to the dispute was the date Levine
responded to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, which
was December 18, 2015. (ECF No. 154 at 55-75.) Therefore, the
deadline for this discovery motion to be filed was February
1, 2016. Plaintiff’s motion to compel was filed nearly
three months late, and Plaintiff has not provided any
justification for his untimeliness.
Plaintiff was warned that all discovery disputes must comply
with the Court’s rules. (See ECF No. 146 at 2
(advising the parties that “all discovery disputes must
be filed in accordance with the time limits, and filing
procedures set forth in Judge Bartick’s Civil Chambers
Rules”).) It would be well within the Court’s
discretion to reject Plaintiff’s motion for these
reasons. However, in the interest of justice, the Court will
address the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff is advised that any future discovery
motion will not be considered unless the Court’s rules
and procedures are complied with.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Admissions
for Admissions (“RFAs”) are governed by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 36, which provides:
A party may serve on any other party a written request to
admit, for the purposes of the pending action only, the truth
of any matters within ...