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.

Linlor v. Chase Bankcard Services, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. California

May 9, 2018

JAMES LINLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
CHASE BANKCARD SERVICES, INC. and CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND RESPOND TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY [DOC. NO. 39.]

          Hon. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is a document filed by plaintiff entitled "Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute." [Doc. No. 39.] In this "Joint Motion, " plaintiff complains that defendants have not provided adequate responses to his discovery requests. He seeks an order from the Court compelling defendants to produce documents and provide all relevant information in response to unidentified discovery requests. [Doc. No. 39, at pp. 4-6.] Despite its title, plaintiffs Motion is not "Joint, " because defendants did not contribute to the "Joint Motion." [Doc. No. 40, at pp. 1-7.] Instead, defendants filed an Opposition to the "Joint Motion." [Doc. No. 40.] Plaintiff then filed a Reply. [Doc. No. 48.] For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling defendants to produce documents and provide all relevant information in response to unidentified discovery requests must be DENIED.

         Background

         Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. In the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff generally alleges that he was the victim of credit card fraud and reported the fraud to defendants, but defendants failed to remove the fraudulent charges or conduct a reasonable investigation and then reported false and misleading information to credit reporting agencies in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [Doc. No. 22, at pp. 2-3, 9 et seq.]

         Defendants represented in their Opposition, that plaintiff served them with written discovery requests on November 20, 2017, and they provided plaintiff with timely responses on December 26, 2017. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 2.] Defendants also represented that in response to plaintiffs document requests they produced various non-confidential documents and advised plaintiff they would produce additional confidential documents subject to an appropriate protective order, but plaintiff has refused to stipulate to the entry of a protective order. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 2.]

         Discussion

         A. Timeliness.

         The Scheduling Order filed in this case states that: "All discovery motions must be filed within 45 days of the service of an objection, answer, or response which become the subject of dispute" [Doc. No. 37, at p. 2. See also Chambers' Rule V(A).] Defendants have represented that they responded to plaintiffs discovery requests on December 26, 2017. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 2.] Plaintiff did not file his "Joint Motion" until March 20, 2018, long after the 45-day deadline had expired. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling defendants to provide further response to discovery requests must be DENIED as untimely.

         B. Joint Motion Process.

         In preparing his moving papers, it is apparent that plaintiff reviewed Chambers' Rules V pertaining to discovery disputes. This is apparent, because plaintiff quoted from Chambers' Rule V in his "Joint Motion." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 2.] However, it is also apparent that plaintiff either did not understand Chambers' Rule V or decided not to comply with it. Defendants represented in their Opposition that plaintiff provided them with a draft copy of his Joint Motion before he filed it, and defendants explained that it "lacked merit" and included "procedural defects, " but plaintiff filed the "Joint Motion" without addressing defendants' concerns. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 4.]

         The purpose of the "Joint Motion" process, as outlined in Chambers' Rule V, is to have opposing parties use a specific format to present their respective arguments about a discovery dispute in a single document. Chambers' Rule V states in part as follows:

         For each written discovery request in dispute, the Joint Motion must include:

1. The exact wording of the discovery request;
2. The exact response to the request by the ...

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.