From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniel v. Padilla

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 28, 2009
No. 2:08-cv-0682 WBS JFM PS (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2009)

Opinion

No. 2:08-cv-0682 WBS JFM PS.

May 28, 2009


ORDER


On April 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Initial Disclosure." On May 14, 2009, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Notice to Produce; Demand for Document Inspection." Plaintiff asks the court to order defendants to produce certain documents.

Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that discovery, discovery requests served on an opposing party or that party's responses should not be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's April 23, 2009 filing will be placed in the court file and disregarded.

2. Plaintiff's May 14, 2009 motion (#41) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing of discovery requests or responses, except as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a recommendation that this action be dismissed.


Summaries of

Daniel v. Padilla

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 28, 2009
No. 2:08-cv-0682 WBS JFM PS (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2009)
Case details for

Daniel v. Padilla

Case Details

Full title:MELVIN DE VAN DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. B. PADILLA, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: May 28, 2009

Citations

No. 2:08-cv-0682 WBS JFM PS (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2009)