Opinion
20-cv-03128-PJH
07-07-2021
KAVIN MAURICE RHODES, Plaintiff, v. D. FORD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
RE: DKT. NO. 47
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the court's request defendants' counsel provided help in attempting to identify a defendant identified as “Perner”. Docket Nos. 31, 45, 48. Defendants discovered that the defendant at issue was J. Hernandez, and counsel is appearing for that defendant. There is no past or current employee at the prison with that name and “Perner” is a general term used to identify employee identification numbers at the prison. The court accepts the representations from defense counsel and the litigation coordinator at the prison. Plaintiff has now filed a request for an order of discovery from the court to ascertain the identity of Perner.
Plaintiff is advised that the court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not have the resources to oversee all discovery, and so requires that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37.
Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 47) is DENIED. Plaintiff may attempt to use discovery procedures outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; however, the litigation will continue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.