Opinion
20cv1045-JO(RBB)
12-19-2022
KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, Plaintiff v. DANE OLSEN, etc., et al., Defendants
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANTS [ECF NO. 35]
Hon. Ruben B. Brooks, United States Magistrate Judge
On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff Keith Wayne Sekerke filed a Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants [ECF No. 35]. The motion seeks an order compelling Defendants to provide “copies of all incident reports (‘ISRs') written by all staff members in the jail from October 2018 - July 16, 2021.” (Pl.'s Mot. 2, ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff signed his motion on October 28, 2022. (Id.) On November 16, 2022, Defendant Arkwright filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion [ECF No. 37]. Defendant contends that the motion should be denied because (1) Plaintiff did not meet and confer prior to filing his motion, as required by Civil Local Rule 26.1(a)-(b) and this Court's Chambers Rules, and (2) Defendant provided the requested materials on October 26, 2022, and thus Plaintiff's request is moot. (Def.'s Opp'n 1-2, ECF No. 37.) The briefing schedule issued by the Court provided Plaintiff until December 12, 2022, to file a reply brief. (Mins., Nov. 14, 2022, ECF No. 36.) He did not do so.
Although Plaintiff seeks an order compelling discovery from “Defendants,” there is only one defendant in this matter, Lt. Adam Arkwright.
The Civil Local Rules and this Court's Chambers Rules require that parties meet and confer prior to filing a discovery motion. (See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 26.1(a) (“The Court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues.”); see also Honorable Ruben B. Brooks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Chambers Rules.) The moving party is required to file a certificate of compliance at the time of filing any discovery motion. (See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 26.1(b).) Plaintiff failed to do so here and has not responded to Defendant's contention that he neglected to meet and confer prior to filing his motion. Plaintiff's motion to compel is thus DENIED on this basis.
Additionally, Defendant represents that he fully responded to Plaintiff's request for all incident reports, or ISRs, involving Plaintiff from October 11, 2018, to July 16, 2021, and produced 6,647 pages of documents to Plaintiff on October 26, 2022. (Def.'s Opp'n 1-2, ECF No. 37.) Sekerke has not presented any counter to Defendant's representation, despite having been provided the opportunity to file a reply brief. Based on the information before the Court, Defendant appears to have fully responded to the discovery at issue in Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's motion is accordingly DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.