Robinson v. County of San Joaquin

Full title: ANTHONY W. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 11, 2013

2:12-cv-2783 MCE GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013)

Opinion

ANTHONY W. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-2783 MCE GGH PS United States District Court, E.D. California. October 11, 2013

          ORDER

          GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.

         On October 6 and 7, 2013, plaintiff sent two letters by email to the undersigned's chambers email address. Plaintiff is informed that such communications with the court, without providing notification to the opposing party, constitute improper ex parte communications. The court is unable to be a neutral adjudicator where one party attempts to raise an argument before it without the participation of the opposing party. Therefore, the two emails will be filed and docketed so that defendants may be aware of them. In future, plaintiff must communicate with the court by filing the document(s) with the Clerk's Office and serving his opposing counsel.

         As to the substance of plaintiff's email communications, plaintiff, by asking how he can bring the issues before the court, appears to seek discovery from defendants in order to establish his case. Plaintiff is advised to refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in serving the discovery requests he desires. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26-36. If there is a discovery dispute, plaintiff may file a motion pursuant to this court's Local Rules. See E.D. Local Rule 251. In general, EEOC investigators are not required to submit to deposition in cases where the EEOC is not a party. Baker v. Dupnik, 2010 WL 9561922, *3-4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2010). In regard to notes and transcripts from the EEOC case, plaintiff is advised that such documents may be subpoenaed, but rules of relevance apply, and certain privileges or other limitations may restrict or prevent their disclosure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45; Leyh v. Modicon, Inc., 881 F.Supp. 420, 426-27 (S.D. Ind. 1995); Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 1994).

         In regard to plaintiff's request for a prompt ruling regarding scheduling, a scheduling order will issue in the near future. The parties may begin discovery at any time and are not required to await such an order.

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the two emails sent to the undersigned on October 6 and 7, 2013.