Opinion
2:23-cv-01624-LK-BAT
01-22-2024
DAVID D. BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES HANKEN, et al., Defendant.
ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, DKT. 17
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery on January 19, 2024. Dkt. 17 the Court ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff's motion for discovery, Dkt. 17, is STRICKEN for two reasons. The Court will not hear a motion to compel discovery until the moving party has met and conferred with opposing counsel or made a good faith effort to do so. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). A good faith effort to confer requires a face-to-face meeting or telephone conference. Local Rule CR 37(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff presents nothing showing he has met this requirement before he filed his discovery motion. Additionally, On January 18, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and stayed pretrial deadlines pending locating counsel who would be willing to represent Plaintiff pro bono. It is the Court's intent the parties delay discovery pending the appearance of pro bono counsel. Once pro bono counsel appears, the parties shall confer and submit a Joint Status Report so the Court can issue an amended pretrial schedule.
2. Plaintiff should note that once pro bono counsel has been secured and makes an appearance, Plaintiff may not file pleadings himself as all pleadings should be filed by pro bono counsel. Thus, any pleading that Plaintiff himself files while represented by counsel will be stricken.
3. The clerk of court shall provide a copy of this Order to the parties and to the assigned United States District Judge.