Opinion
5:24-cv-161-TJC-PRL
07-03-2024
DANNY ANTONIO PASTRANA Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
PHILIP R. LAMMENS, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff generally states that Defendant “[h]as not provided any of the plaintiffs answers or documents” and has failed “to show any proof They are the rightful owners of such claims.” Plaintiff also raises various arguments and issues related to the merits of the case, which are not properly the subject of a motion to compel.
Pursuant to Rule 37(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party may move for an order compelling a discovery response if the other party fails to respond to a discovery request. However, “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) ... or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). Here, the parties have not met and conferred under Rule 26(f), and no scheduling order under Rule 16 has been issued. And, even if it had, no discovery requests have been served by either party. Simply stated, there is nothing for this Court to compel.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 10) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.