Opinion
20-cv-01323-PJH
09-10-2021
HERMAN TAMRAT, Plaintiff, v. ERICK RHODES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
RE: DKT. NOS. 55, 59
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. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. However, plaintiff has filed a motion to compel. The motion to compel is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended motion to compel with more information. Simply listing the discovery he seeks to compel is insufficient. He must describe which specific discovery requests he seeks to compel, why defendants' responses are insufficient and why he is entitled to the discovery. Before filing an amended motion compel, plaintiff must also meet and confer with defendants to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37.
Part of defendants' motion for summary judgment included video evidence on a USB drive and CD. This evidence was apparently sent by defendants to plaintiff but confiscated by prison officials at California Medical Facility. Plaintiff indicates that he has been unable to view the videos which are necessary for him to file an opposition. Plaintiff has filed a motion to allow him to view the videos. The motion is granted.
For the foregoing reasons:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket No. 55) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff must meet confer with defendants and any amended motion to compel must be filed by October 15, 2021.
2. Plaintiff's motion to view the video (Docket No. 59) is GRANTED. Defendants will arrange for plaintiff to view the video evidence by October 1, 2021. Defendants may file a request with the court if an order is required help facilitate the viewing. Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition to summary judgment by November 1, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.