Opinion
No. 2:10-cv-3003-JAM-JFM (PS).
August 15, 2011
ORDER
This matter commenced on November 8, 2010 and is proceeding on a first amended complaint filed January 18, 2011. Service was ordered on May 26, 2011. A scheduling conference is set before the undersigned for December 1, 2011.
On June 15, 2011, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for writ to disclose names. Plaintiff seeks an order from this court directing the disclosure of the names of Sheriff's Deputies John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. Plaintiff asserts that, per an unidentified "records keeper," a court order is necessary to obtain these names because they "are not disclosed in the Sacramento County of California CAD Report Event No. 081970050 dated 7/15/2008."
At this posture, the undersigned does not find that a court order is necessary. There is no suggestion that the parties have conferred as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) or that the parties stipulated to commence discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). Thus, it has not yet been determined whether plaintiff may obtain these names through discovery.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for writ is denied without prejudice.
DATED: August 12, 2011.