Opinion
No. CIV S-07-0747 LKK DAD PS.
May 6, 2008
ORDER
The court addresses two documents recently filed by the pro se plaintiff. One of the documents is titled "Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents." Local Rule 34-250 provides that "[r]equests for production, responses and proofs of service thereof shall not be filed with the Clerk until there is a proceeding in which the request, response, or proof of service is at issue." Local Rule 34-250(c) (emphasis added). There is no motion or other proceeding in which plaintiff's request for production of documents is at issue.
Plaintiff is informed that the filing prohibition also applies to other discovery requests, responses, and proofs of service.See Local Rules 30-250(a) (depositions), 33-250(c) (interrogatories), 36-250(c) (requests for admission), 45-250(d) (subpoenas duces tecum). An individual representing himself without an attorney is bound by this court's Local Rules and by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Local Rule 83-183(a). Plaintiff may obtain a copy of the Local Rules from the Clerk of the Court or view the rules on this court's web site. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with applicable rules may be ground for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. See Local Rules 11-110 83-183(a). Accordingly, plaintiff's improperly filed request for production of documents will be disregarded.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a court order requiring that he be "tested by law enforcement for chemicals." This request is supported by several pages of allegations spanning several years and multiple states. The motion contains no legal authority for the order he seeks. In addition, plaintiff did not notice the motion for hearing and did not serve a copy of the motion on defendants' counsel. See Local Rules 5-135 78-230. For all of these reasons, the motion will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's April 28, 2008 request for production of documents (docket No. 30) is disregarded; and
2. Plaintiff's April 28, 2008 motion for court ordered chemical testing (docket No. 31) is denied.