From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Stewart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
May 14, 2019
CASE NO. 3:19-cv-5096 BHS-JRC (W.D. Wash. May. 14, 2019)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:19-cv-5096 BHS-JRC

05-14-2019

EDDIE LOUIS SMITH, III, Plaintiff, v. BELINDA D. STEWART, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. See Dkt. 2. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion To Compel Pretrial Disclosure of Information. Dkt. 24. Because plaintiff failed to certify that he attempted to confer with the opposing parties before bringing his motion to compel, the motion is denied. /// /// ///

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, has listed multiple unidentified defendants, allegedly all corrections officers, in his complaint. See Dkt. 5, at 2. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel regarding these unidentified defendants, requesting that the named defendants "produce any/all information pertaining to the identification of all Jane and John Doe defendants named in this complaint." Dkt. 24, at 1. The sole attempt that plaintiff claims he has made to obtain this information is using Washington State's "[p]ublic [d]isclosure process"; however he was unable to obtain the information. Dkt. 25, at 2.

The named defendants argue that plaintiff's motion to compel should be denied because plaintiff failed to certify that he attempted to confer with the named defendants before seeking to resolve the dispute by court action. See Dkt. 33, at 2. The Court agrees. Plaintiff's failure to certify that he conferred or attempted to confer with the named defendants before filing his motion to compel, standing alone, merits denial of his motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Civil Rule 37(a)(1). Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is required to read and comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court's orders. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)

CONCLUSION

For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure. See Dkt. 24.

Dated this 14th day of May, 2019.

/s/_________

J. Richard Creatura

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Smith v. Stewart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
May 14, 2019
CASE NO. 3:19-cv-5096 BHS-JRC (W.D. Wash. May. 14, 2019)
Case details for

Smith v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:EDDIE LOUIS SMITH, III, Plaintiff, v. BELINDA D. STEWART, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: May 14, 2019

Citations

CASE NO. 3:19-cv-5096 BHS-JRC (W.D. Wash. May. 14, 2019)