Opinion
22 CV 2124 (VB)
05-31-2022
TYREK DUBOSE, Plaintiff, v. C.O. JIMINEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
VINCENT L. BRICCETTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 25, 2022, the Court received plaintiff's motion for leave to serve discovery requests on defendants at this stage of the case, that is, before defendants have been served with process. (Doc. #8).
Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Unless the Court orders otherwise, the parties in a civil case “must confer as soon as practicable” about, among other things, the discovery process. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f). “A party may not seek discovery from any source before” this conference, except when authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, agreement of the parties, or court order. Id. r. 26(d)(1). In determining whether to permit a plaintiff to seek discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference, courts have considered “the specificity” of the plaintiff's discovery requests, and “the need for” the requested discovery. Cf. Arista Rees., LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010).
Here, the Court will not, at this stage of the case, permit plaintiff to serve his proposed discovery requests. Plaintiff's discovery requests are very broad and not tailored to the claims in his complaint. Moreover, plaintiff has not established the need for discovery at this stage of the case. According, plaintiff's motion is denied.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposes of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v, United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket.
SO ORDERED.