Opinion
CASE NO. C13-1743 MJP
07-15-2014
RAPHEAL G RUSSELL, Plaintiff, v. TODD PACIFIC/VIGOR INDUSTRIES, Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO
BIFURCATE AND CLAIRFY
This matter is before the Court on two motions from Plaintiff: a motion to compel and for sanctions (Dkt. No. 31) and a motion to bifurcate and clarify (Dkt. No. 32). The Court reviewed both motions, Defendant's responses (Dkt. Nos. 33 and 35), and all related documents. Plaintiff did not submit a reply brief for either motion. Both motions are DENIED.
I. Motion to Compel and for Sanctions
Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants to respond to interrogatories. (Dkt. No. 31.) Plaintiff attached several documents to his motion, which appear to be medical records and some fax confirmations. (Id. at 2-25). Plaintiff indicates the documents were sent May 15, 2014, and argues Defendant should have responded within 30 days, by June 15, 2014. (Id. at 1.) Defendant opposes the motion, arguing Plaintiff failed to request or conduct a Rule 37 conference before bringing his motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 33 at 1.) More importantly, Defendant argues, it did timely respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Defendant produces a U.S. Postal Service confirmation showing the response was delivered to Plaintiff's address on June 14, 2014. (Dkt. No. 34-2 at 1.)
"Any motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery must include a certification, in the motion or in a declaration or affidavit, that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action." Local Civil Rule 37(a). Plaintiff failed to provide any indication he requested a Rule 37 conference. Further, Defendant provides an affidavit stating it did timely respond, as well as documentation of delivery. (Dkt. Nos. 34-1 and 34-2.) For both of these reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
II. Motion to Bifurcate and Clarify
Plaintiff labels his second motion as a motion to "have this case fully bifurcated and to clarify Vigor Todd liabilities on these injuries." (Dkt. No. 32.) In the body of the motion, Plaintiff does not address bifurcation or clarification. Instead, he states Defendant has been a government contractor with a "hefty part of . . . contracts just like in Bank America Countrywide where the Courts rule Bank of America is liable for Countywide notoriousness where they [are] the same contract[,] the same people[,] the same rules[.] That spells discrimination[.]" (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff attaches a letter from the postal service indicating the location of his Post Office Box will be changing, but that his box address will not change. (Dkt. No. 32 at 3.) Defendant opposes the motion, arguing Plaintiff's motion is unintelligible. (Dkt. No. 35 at 1.)
The Court agrees with Defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1)(B) and (C) requires motions state with particularity the grounds for seeking an order, and state the relief sought. Plaintiff's motion does neither of these things. The Court cannot determine what Plaintiff is asking for. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Conclusion
Plaintiff's motions to bifurcate and to compel (Dkt. Nos. 31 and 32) are without merit. Both motions are DENIED.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
__________
Marsha J. Pechman
Chief United States District Judge