Opinion
3:23-CV-5594-RAJ-DWC
01-08-2024
NATHAN BRADLEY FOUTS, Plaintiff, v. DIANE HOULTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY MOTION
DAVID W. CHRISTEL, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion docketed as a “Motion to Compel Discovery.” Dkt. 36. Upon review, the Court concludes Plaintiff is not attempting to compel discovery, but rather he is attempting to serve discovery requests on Defendants.
Because Plaintiff is attempting to serve discovery on Defendants, the Court finds a response from Defendants is not necessary prior to ruling on this Motion. As Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se plaintiff, the Court encourages Defendants to respond to the discovery requests outlined in his Motion.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1), “[a] party may serve on any other party a request . . . to produce[.]” See also Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5 (“[D]iscovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceedings or the court orders filing.”). To properly serve his discovery requests, Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests to Defendants' counsel. In addition, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking a court order compelling Defendants to provide discovery responses, his Motion does not comply with Local and Federal Rules. More specifically, Plaintiff failed to certify he conferred or attempted to confer with Defendants' counsel regarding the discovery dispute. See Dkt. 36; Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1); LCR 37(a)(1). The certification requirement outlined in these rules is designed to encourage resolution of discovery disputes informally and without court intervention.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 36) is denied.