Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-606
08-25-2021
FREDERICK CHARLES PRESTON JR v. J MELVIN
HICKS, CHIEF JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Mark L. Hornsby, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Frederick Charles Preston, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), who is self-represented, filed this civil rights action related to an alleged use of force incident and related events that took place at CCC in January 2021. Before the court are three discovery motions filed by Plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, the motions are denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a letter (Doc. 24) in July 2021 and asked that the court order the production of various statements, photos, an ARP grievance, and the like. The clerk of court docketed the letter as a Motion for Order to Produce, and a notice was issued to allow for briefing. Plaintiff later filed two items titled Motion to Produce (Docs. 26 & 29). The first asks the court to order CCC and the sheriff's office to provide Plaintiff with matters including video footage associated with the incident. The other motion asks for statements, videos, etc. related to an internal affairs proceeding.
Defendants have responded to the first two motions and explained that they did not receive Plaintiff's requests before he filed his motions. Defendants state that they are treating the motions as requests for production of documents, and they will serve Plaintiff with timely responses.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 allows a party to request another party to produce documents, which must be nonprivileged and relevant to a party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1). Rule 34 requires the party making the request to serve opposing counsel with a written request for production of documents. The opposing party then has 30 days to serve a response. Neither the request for production nor the response is to be filed with the court. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 5(d)(1)(A). It is only if the defendant does not serve a timely response, or if the party making the request wishes to challenge the adequacy of the response, that the requesting party files a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37.
There is no indication that Plaintiff served a request for production on defendants before he filed a motion with the court. His motions are, therefore, premature, so each of the motions (Docs. 24, 26, & 29) are denied without prejudice. Defense counsel has stated that the first two motions will be treated as Rule 34 requests for production, and the court asks that defendants treat the third motion in the same manner. Plaintiff will, therefore, receive responses within 30 days of the filing of each motion, allowing reasonable time for mail service.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED.